Assessment and Analytical Framework for Sustainable Urban Planning And

UPTEC STS 16001 Examensarbete 30 hp Februari 2016

Assessment and analytical framework for sustainable urban planning and development A comparative study of the city development projects in Knivsta, Norrtälje and Uppsala

Wasan Hussein Abstract Assessment and analytical framework for sustainable urban planning and development Wasan Hussein

Teknisk- naturvetenskaplig fakultet UTH-enheten This thesis examines how the three urban development projects: Nydal, Norrtälje Harbor and Rosendal address the energy use in future buildings and how their energy Besöksadress: strategies are articulated in relation to requirements specified in the SGBC’s Ångströmlaboratoriet Lägerhyddsvägen 1 certification system Citylab Action. The building Smaragden in Rosendal has been used Hus 4, Plan 0 as a model of a future building in the two other district areas in order to calculate the energy performance in each project, this by using the energy use simulation software Postadress: IDA ICE. Further on the energy mix for each district area has been analyzed in order Box 536 751 21 Uppsala to determine the renewability rate for them. The results shows that the energy performance of Rosendal was 60,8 kWh/m2/year and the heat mix was only 7,92 % Telefon: renewable. Nydal has an energy performance of 45,4 kWh/m2/year and their heat mix 018 – 471 30 03 was 76,80 % renewable. Norrtälje Harbor had the energy performance of 70,9

Telefax: kWh/m2/year and their heat mix had the renewability rate of 79,60 %. Comparing 018 – 471 30 00 these three projects, the Nydal project was the most sustainable when it came to the energy performance since it had the lowest rate. Norrtälje Harbor had the highest Hemsida: percentage of renewable energy sources for their heat mix since they use almost 100 http://www.teknat.uu.se/student percent biofuels. Considering the Citylab Action certification, both Norrtälje Harbor and Rosendal have chosen to certificate their urban development projects according to Citylab. The Nydal project has not yet chosen the Citylab Action certification but they are considering the idea of following its principles anyway and may in the future get certificated according to Citylab Action. Looking at the energy strategies of Uppsala-, Norrtälje- and Knivsta municipality, Uppsala had the most structured energy strategy. They have specified clear goals, measures and follow-up process. Knivsta- and Norrtälje municipality are going to develop their energy strategies in the near future.

Handledare: David Lindgren Ämnesgranskare: Daniel Bergquist Examinator: Elísabet Andrésdóttir ISSN: 1650-8319, UPTEC STS 16001 Populärvetenskaplig sammanfattning

I samband med klimatförändringarna har byggsektorn blivit alltmer uppmärksammad. Idag står bygg- och fastighetsektorn för ca 40 procent av den totala energianvändningen i Sverige vilket gör den till en av de största sektorerna där förbättringar kan göras och åtgärder kan tas för att begränsa utsläppen av växthusgaser. Att bygga hållbart samt att utveckla hållbara stadsdelar hamnar därför i fokus för många aktörer inom näringslivet som kommuner, företag, entreprenörer likväl som politiker och nationer. Ett sätt att nå uppsatta miljömål och synliggöra det arbete som sker på projektnivå är att arbeta med olika typer av miljöcertifieringar för byggnader och stadsdelar. Citylab är ett nylanserat svenskt certifieringssystem för stadsdelar som kan användas tillsammans med andra certifierings system för byggnader och ger möjlighet för stadsutvecklingsprojekt som står inför komplexa utmaningar att bland annat uppmuntra uppförandet av byggnader utan negativ klimat- och miljöpåverkan i nya och befintliga områden. Citylab uppmuntrar också till att skapa en tät och sammankopplad stadbebyggelse som är mångfunktionell och där invånarna har tillgång till service, gröna ytor, kultur samt rekreation. Syftet med denna uppsats var att undersöka och jämföra hur projekten Nydal i Knivsta, Norrtälje Hamn i Norrtälje och Rosendal i Uppsala arbetar med energianvändning i deras stadsdelsprojekt samt hur deras energistrategier förhåller sig till kraven i Citylab. Mer specifikt utvärderades energianvändningen för byggnaden Smaragden i Rosendal, vilket användes som en indikator för att bedöma i vilken utsträckning dessa projekt arbetar hållbart. Eftersom Nydal och Norrtälje hamn inte har byggts ännu, användes samma byggnad i Rosensdal som utgångspunkt, men med projektspecifika ingångsvärden och specifikationer beroende på de energistrategier som används i varje enskild stadsdel. Slutsatsen var att Nydal var den mest hållbara stadsdelen när det handlade om energianvändning i byggnader då de valde att följa passivhuskraven och därmed fick den lägsta energianvändningen. Både energistrategierna samt energianvändningen i byggnader i de tre stadsdelar skiljde sig från varandra. Rosendal hade den mest strukturerade energistrategin då Uppsala kommun hade mål, åtgärder för att uppnå målen samt uppföljning av sina projekt. Norrtälje Hamn och Nydal sakande båda uppföljningsstrategier vilket gör att det blir svårare att verkligen mäta till vilken grad de satta målen kan komma att uppnås. Analys och beräkningar av energianvändningen för testbyggnaden Smaragden i de tre stadsdelarna visade att Nydal kan få, som tidigare nämnts, den lägsta energianvändningen då krav på passivhus samt lokal solenergiproduktion är tänkta att 2 ställas. Energianvändningen för Nydal var beräknad till 46,4 kWh/m Atemp/år. 2 Norrtälje hade den högsta energianvändningen som beräknades till 70,9 kWh/m Atemp/år, då endast krav i BBR 22 har ställts. Energianvändningen för Rosendal var 2 beräknad till 60,8 kWh/m Atemp/år. Förnybarhetsgraden för värmemixen visade däremot annorlunda resultat då Norrtälje hade den högsta andelen förnybar energi medan Rosendal hade den lägsta andelen. Generellt hade alla tre kommunerna både styrkor och svagheter avseende sin hållbarhetsstrategi och energiförsörjning. Gemensamt för alla var att de siktade på hållbara stadsdelar och åtgärder planeras för att uppnå detta.

Table of contents

Populärvetenskaplig sammanfattning ...... 0 Table of contents ...... 2 1. Introduction ...... 5 1.1 Purpose and research question ...... 6 1.1.1 Limitations ...... 7 2. Background ...... 7 2.1 Citylab ...... 7 2.1.1 Energy use principle ...... 9 2.2 District areas ...... 10 2.2.1 Nydal, Knivsta ...... 10 2.2.2 Norrtälje Harbor ...... 12 2.2.3 Rosendal, Uppsala ...... 14 2.3 Energy modeling the building Smaragden ...... 15 3. Methodology ...... 15 3.1 Case study ...... 16 3.2 Interview ...... 16 3.3 IDA ICE ...... 18 3.4 Polysun ...... 19 3.5 PVgis ...... 19 4. Urban development in a broader sustainability perspective...... 19 4.1 Sustainable development theory ...... 20 4.2 Planetary boundaries ...... 22 4.3 Life cycle assessment ...... 25 4.4 A systems view of buildings ...... 26 4.4.1 Heat losses ...... 27 4.4.2 Ventilation ...... 28 4.4.3 National Board for Housing requirements 22 (BBR 22) ...... 28 4.4.4 FEBY12 ...... 29 4.5 Solar energy ...... 29 5. Results ...... 30 5.1 Citylab Energy principle ...... 30 5.1.1 Rosendal, Uppsala ...... 31 5.1.2 Nydal, Knivsta ...... 32 5.1.3 Norrtälje Harbor ...... 33 5.2 Renewability and sustainability ...... 34 5.2.1 Energy mix ...... 35

5.2.2 Wind power ...... 36 5.2.3 Hydro power ...... 37 5.2.4 Biofuel ...... 39 5.2.5 Nuclear power ...... 40 5.2.6 Fossil fuels ...... 41 5.2.7 Waste...... 41 5.2.8 Geothermal power ...... 42 5.3 Rosendal, Uppsala ...... 43 5.3.1 Uppsala municipality climate and energy agenda ...... 43 5.3.2 Rosendal energy consumption ...... 45 5.3.3 Renewability rate ...... 46 5.4 Nydal, Knivsta ...... 47 5.4.1 Knivsta municipality energy strategy ...... 47 5.4.2 Nydal energy consumption ...... 49 5.4.3 Solar electricity ...... 51 5.4.4 PVgis Simulation ...... 51 5.4.5 Solar heat ...... 52 5.4.6 Renewability rate ...... 53 5.5 Norrtälje Harbor ...... 54 5.5.1 Norrtälje Harbor energy strategy ...... 54 5.5.2 Norrtälje Harbor energy consumption ...... 55 5.5.3 Renewability rate ...... 56 5.6 Energy use results summary ...... 57 6. Discussion ...... 59 7. Conclusions ...... 62 8. Recommendations and further studies ...... 63 9. References ...... 64 Appendix A ...... 69

Glossary and conceptual list

Especific [KWh] : The energy needed to be delivered from PVs

2 Atemp [m ]: is the internal surface of the floor, air plane and the basement, which is heated to more than 10 ° C in the building. Atemp is the area which the specific energy consumption should be calculated according to (Energy department).

Net area: is the sum of all floor plans and area limited by the enclosing sections of the building outside. (Abel Elmeroth, 2013, p.273)

U [KWh/KW]: Energy yield is the theoretical annual energy production, only taking into account eh energy of the incoming light and the module's nominal efficiency.

Energy balance: the total value of supplied and removed energy to the building (Abel and Elmeroth, 2013, p.125).

1. Introduction

Half of the human population on Earth already lives in cities that are expected to absorb more than 90% of future population growth, mostly in poor countries (UN population fund, 2007). The rapidly growing cities face challenges regarding raising social and environmental conditions. But urbanization also offers opportunities for developing sustainable solutions for global environmental and social issues (Sánchez-Rodriquez, 2005). This makes urbanization, including its social, economic and physical transformation dimensions, into one of “the most powerful and visible anthropogenic forces on earth” (Sánchez-Rodriquez, 2005).

In Sweden more than 85% of the population lives in cities (Globalis, 2015). A challenge is to develop cities in a way that will create jobs and prosperity while not exploiting land and resources. Other issues such as infrastructure, housing, congestion and access to basic services also emerge due to urbanization (UN, 2015).

Sweden Green Building Council (SGBC) is a non- profit organization, open to all companies and organizations within the Swedish construction and property sector. It is one of the leading organizations in Sweden for promotion of sustainable buildings. In June 2015 SGBC launched a forum together with more than 50 stakeholders, for sharing knowledge in sustainable urban development. This forum is called Citylab and aims to help participants get access to methods, tools, education and networks to develop sustainable cities. Citylab Action helps urban development projects create good working processes and to reach sustainability goals in an inspiring and effective way. Citylab also provides certification for urban development projects. This research study departs from Citylabs energy principle to achieve sustainable urban development and compared it to the conventional sustainability energy requirements that are used today by the three district areas: Nydal, Norrtälje Harbor and Rosendal. The study analyzes energy strategies and building technologies in these district areas in order to determine how they affect their overall sustainability.

1.1 Purpose and research question

The purpose of this study is to compare how the projects Nydal, Norrtälje Harbor and Rosendal address energy use and sources in future buildings and how these strategies are articulated in relation to requirements specified in Citylab.

The energy strategy in each municipality was studied in order to evaluate to what extent these projects work sustainably. The energy use for the building Smaragden in Rosendal will be assessed and used as an indicator, or a test building, to exemplify and highlight what results can be expected from the each municipality’s energy objectives. Since Nydal and Norrtälje Harbor are not built yet, the data from Smaragden is used as a baseline, which is adapted by using specific input values and specifications depending on the energy strategy applied in each specific area.

In order to fulfill the purpose, the following research questions were used:

. How does each project address energy use, and how are such strategies articulated relative to the sustainability requirements specified in Citylab?

. What is the energy mix for each project and how does this affect overall sustainability from an energy use perspective?

. From the above perspective, how sustainable are the respective projects compared to each other?

An analytical framework was thereby developed to compare how sustainable development was implemented in practice in these projects through the sustainability principles related to energy use issues specified in SGBC’s certification system. This analytical framework was based on 1) SGBC’s principles and impact goals related to energy issues, 2) interviews with actors involved with translating these goals into practical solutions through choosing among available technologies, and 3) secondary data and written sources on interdisciplinary evaluation and valuation of potential trade- offs derived from the different sociotechnical systems and measures chosen.

1.1.1 Limitations

This study provides an understanding and analysis of an earlier draft of SGBC's Citylab Action manual (dated to 2015-10-30). The main focus of the thesis is on the sustainability principles that SGBC have developed. These principles will be presented and analyzed to form the basis for the analytical framework. However, mainly one specific principle will be studied in more detail, i.e. the principle related to energy use aspects, in order to facilitate comparison between the three project cases. The energy use analysis will be performed on a specific building called Smaragden, situated in Rosendal. For Norrtälje Harbor and Nydal the same building will be used but with different input values which are adapted to the different energy principles used in those two areas. The reason why the same building is used is that Norrtälje Harbor and Nydal are not built yet. Therefore, Smaragden is used as a test building for formulating assumptions in the other case areas.

The renewability rate for the energy mix was also investigated in order to analyze the sustainability of the energy used by each district area. To obtain an exact rate of renewability, assumptions were made for the energy sources based on flow limitation, stock limitation and non-renewable resources.

2. Background

2.1 Citylab

Citylab is organized in cooperation between public and private actors, civil society and academia, to create solutions for both project- and social challenges. It constitutes a forum for exchange and cooperation between research and development projects and urban development projects. The purpose is to develop tools, indicators and methods to test and evaluate them in collaboration with the city development projects, researchers, etc (Hallplatsen, 2015).

The idea behind Citylab started in 2010 when the project Hållbar certifiering av stadsdelar [sustainability certification of urban districts] (HCS) was launched which has involved thousands of people from government departments, municipalities, building owners, consulting firms, architectural firms, universities and others to develop a tool for sustainable urban development. The vision of the project was to “create a common process that engages and leads to sustainable urban development” (Slutrapport Betatester, 2014, p.3). The process was to perform Beta tests to measure the adaptation of several urban development projects to the international certification system BREEAM Communities for sustainable urban development. BREEAM Communities is a way to measure, certify and improve the social, environmental and economic sustainability of large-scale development plans. This is done by integrating sustainable design into the master planning process (BREEAM, 2013). The Beta test in Sweden

7 involved a roughly translated version of the BREEAM Communities manual. There were 22 urban development projects involved and their view on adaptation to Swedish conditions was collected. The main results were that the manual does not fit a Swedish planning context, the demands of the manual clashed with Swedish practice, a link with Swedish planning and construction process was unclear, the Swedish legislation needed to be included in the manual and the translation needed improvement. In addition to these shortcomings, the system was perceived as resource intensive and future costs were unclear. When identifying these aspects and weaknesses, the 22 projects formulated recommendations to SGBC. It was communicated that there was a need for a certification system better adapted to the Swedish context and to the Swedish planning process, where construction and development of existing areas should be included, as well as the combination of both. There was also a desire for networking and creating meeting places for the exchange between consultants, projects and researchers and educational opportunities (Slutrapport Betatester, 2014). As a result of these recommendations, the platform Citylab was launched.

Projects involved with Citylab provide their results which may be used by researchers and experts with the purpose to develop methods and solutions that could be used by many different urban development projects. Also research and development projects linked to Citylab should disseminate results to urban development projects. The methods and indicators developed within Citylab can also be used by municipalities for the overall planning of the city to see where special efforts are needed and to obtain trend analysis etc. Citylab consists of three parts that interacts with each other: Citylab Action, Citylab Learning and Citylab Network. In this study, only Citylab Action was considered.

Citylab Action: helps urban development projects to create a good working process. The idea is to make the way to the set sustainability targets both more inspiring and more efficient. It is possible for projects to examine and certify their sustainability work by SGBC. In the planning phase, the certification will include a sustainability program and an action plan which is illustrated in figure 1. Final certification is done after the implementation of the project.

Figure 1. Citylab Action certification (SGBC, 2015)

2.1.1 Energy use principle

SGBC has established impact goals for sustainable urban development. These goals represent a fundamental basis for the long-term economic, social and environmental effects which are pursued for sustainable development. SGBC did not wish to define the impact goals details in a precise way but to provide support and guidance for the concept of sustainable development and how to understand the meaning of it. Each goal has a set of principles for sustainable development. The energy principle is based on three parts: presenting the goals for the specific project, defining measures to reach the goals and a follow-up process to analyze the results and to see if the goals were obtained. There is also an energy strategy specified that the urban development projects should follow. To include the most relevant part of the energy strategy for this study, in this thesis only an excerpt is presented. The energy use principle was considered for the three projects and it is presented below (SGBC, 2015).

Goal: Energy consumption will be minimized, renewable energy sources that have limited environmental and health impacts should be used and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions should be close to zero. . Project objectives regarding: o Energy in the built environment should be planned according to the Kyoto Pyramid principles: 1. Life cycle perspective 2. Avoid energy demand (through smart planning) 3. Low energy needs , the energy is used as efficient as possible 4. Choosing installations and solutions covers the energy needs in the best way 5. Closed loop, which means that resources are used efficiently 6. Renewable energy o Energy use during the operation of buildings and infrastructure, including household and operation energy o Use of renewable energy

o Net emissions of greenhouse gases from buildings, infrastructure and transport (climate neutrality) . Measures to be implemented to achieve the goals including any certification - requirements for buildings and infrastructure project . Follow-up of objectives and actions . An energy strategy including calculations and analyzes for different scenarios, taking into account: o Built-up area will be largely powered by renewable energy o The project's basic conditions must be specified in sectors such as energy, conditions to be imposed on energy, solutions for public spaces, as well as conditions for the surroundings. o Planning should take into account the orientation of buildings in the terrain, and other planning in the area, to reduce energy consumption and to optimize active and passive utilization of solar energy. o Analysis and investigation will be reported by the alternative scenarios for energy supply, including the project's chosen strategy

2.2 District areas

2.2.1 Nydal, Knivsta

Knivsta is a town and municipality in Uppland and Uppsala County. It is located between Stockholm and Uppsala and has a population of more than 15.000 people (Knivsta Kommun, 2015). In March 2013, an urban development vision was established; the vision was that in 2025 Knivsta will house 20.000-25.000 inhabitants. The task was to formulate an urban development vision including the construction of 3000-5000 residences in the district area called Nydal, with a net area, illustrated in figure 2, of 385 500 m2 including schools, offices and playgrounds (Knivsta Kommun, 2015). The architect and project management firm Tema was hired to run the process together with the municipal work group. Tema has the responsibility for planning and performing a dialogue with the citizens, which have been done at three different occasions during 2014. The results showed that the residents wanted to have access to green areas, opportunities for gardening, prioritize walking and cycling routes, meeting places for both young and old people.

Figure 2: The net area and the land area for a building (Own figure)

The general goals for the urban development vision were to: . Create a sustainable neighborhood where people can live, stay and work in the long-term . Form a neighborhood where public areas and architecture are of high quality . Create opportunities for activities and meetings for people . Offer close and accessible nature and recreation for all . Offer a variety of accommodation options and services . Create conditions for business to flourish

Many of the goals specified above are anthropocentric, which means they regard the human as the central element.

The number of residents is related to the exploitation rate which indicates how much floor space is built per unit area: if on a ground-area of 10x10 meters, an apartment of 100 m2 was built, then the exploitation rate would be 1. In Nydal, the exploitation rate is set to >0,7 to create an urbanized area. A lower rate would create a garden city or a townhouse area. Figure 3 illustrate the planned area for Nydal which is considered in this study and it is marked by the red line (Knivsta Kommun, Stadsbyggnads vision, 2015).

Figure 3: Planning area for Nydal (Knivsta Kommun, Stadsbyggnads vision, 2015).

2.2.2 Norrtälje Harbor

Norrtälje is located in Stockholm County and has a population of 57 000 people (Norrtälje municipality, 2015). Norrtälje Harbor is the biggest urban development project in Norrtälje in the upcoming years. A new district will be built as an extension of the city center. A keyword for this project is sustainability. The planning process for Norrtälje Harbor will be certified according to the Swedish certification system Citylab (Norrtälje Kommun, Utbyggnadsstrategi, 2015).

The expansion strategy for Norrtälje Harbor is based on six general themes which are mostly centered on the humans and how to integrate all different kind of humans in the city. The themes have been defined to fulfill the vision of the municipality for the district area and are presented below:

1) The entire Norrtälje city 2) A meeting place 3) A mixed city 4) An accessible city 5) A beautiful archipelago city 6) Environmentally adapted and resource-smart district area

Key values for Norrtälje Harbor is to be a sustainable and lively district area for children, boats, swimming and where meetings between people is in focus (Norrtälje Kommun, Utbyggnadsstrategi, 2015).

. Children imply high security demand, green areas, play grounds, schools, kindergartens and limited car traffic. . Boats imply that it should be space for boat moorings, for residents and visitors, traffic in the archipelago and events for boating life. . Possibilities for swimming in the harbor and activities for wellness should be promoted. There is also an objective of achieving good water quality in the area.

Figure 4: Map of the different neighborhoods in Norrtälje Harbor (Norrtälje Kommun, 2015).

The first stage of the building process will include the blocks 17-19 which has a total net area of 30400 m2 and it will be apartment’s buildings of three to five floors. The municipality is setting up land allocation competition where different property developers compete against each other for the most appropriate building idea and proposal for Norrtälje Harbor (Norrtälje Kommun, 2015). This study will only consider the blocks 17-19 since they represent the first and the most advanced stage of building the district area and where accessible information could be found.

2.2.3 Rosendal, Uppsala

Rosendal is a district area in Uppsala which is expanding rapidly. Already in 1985, the area was pointed out in Uppsala’s comprehensive plan as a suitable district area to build on. During the early 2000s, the area was designated for offices, research, laboratories, conferences and hotels and a small part for housing and commerce. This plan was adopted in 2007 but due to changing needs of Uppsala University and an increasing demand in the housing market, the plan was no longer able to meet the needs that existed and the area remained undeveloped. In 2010, a new detail plan was presented for the most southern part of Rosendal and 2015 it was followed by a more detailed plan for the rest of Rosendal (Uppsala Kommun, 2015). The district area is about to become an area with a mix of residential, retail, services, university-related activities and closeness to parks and natural areas with high recreational values. Diversity is therefore one of the main keywords for the development of Rosendal. The district area is expected to accommodate about 4.500 residences and around 100 000 m2 of land for the university- related activities (Uppsala Kommun, 2015). This study will only consider the second stage of the building process for Rosendal since it had accessible information about the net area. The second stage covers 4 blocks and a net area of 71 400 m2. It allows for approximately 700 residences and activities, mainly tennis (Hollinder, 2015). The vision of Rosendal is to have everything close, i.e. many who live there can have their offices in the district so they have a walking distance to their workplaces. People can also walk to the grocery store or take a few minutes bike ride to the city center. Figure 5 shows the map of Rosendal in relation to the city of Uppsala.

Figure 5. Map of Rosendal located south of the city center of Uppsala adjacent to two development areas Ulleråker and Södra Staden (Uppsala Kommun).

2.3 Energy modeling the building Smaragden

Smaragden is a building in Rosendal which was completed in December 2015. According to Rosendal Property company, the property developer responsible for the building process, Smaragden consists of five floors and accommodates a total of 115 smaller apartments. The size of the apartments are between 23-48 m2 because there is a major shortage of small apartments in Uppsala. A common feature of all apartments is that they have large and high glass walls instead of standard windows, there is also a shared roof terrace, café and a restaurant (Rosendal fastigheter, 2015).

The project Smaragden has a sustainable objective which is shown by surfaces designed with the opportunities for cultivation. Sustainability is also visible through the green roof designed by sedum and herbal plants aimed to favor biodiversity (Magnusson and Broström, 2015).

3. Methodology

In order to address the questions of the thesis, which were to investigate the energy use and the energy mix in the district areas: Rosendal, Nydal and Norrtälje Hamn, different methods were used. This thesis was based on a comparative study of three cases and provides an overall picture of how each project address the energy use and what their goals are and visions for the energy supply for their future buildings. The comparison was based on qualitative research methods in the terms of semi structured interviews with the head of Citylab in SGBC, Ann-Kristin Belkert and energy strategist from each district area. Interviews with SGBC gave a better understanding of the Citylab concept, the history behind it and the energy principle. Interviews with the energy strategists from the municipalities: Uppsala, Knivsta and Norrtälje gave more in-depth knowledge about their energy strategies and energy use in buildings. Quantitative methods in the terms of energy simulations and calculations were also performed to make further investigation of the energy performance in Smaragden. Quantitative research methods are based on numbers, calculations and the results are presented in charts and tables and provides a feeling of an objective research (Denscombe, 2000). The energy simulations were performed in the application IDA ICE. The software Polysun and PVgis, solar collectors and PV production, were also used to model installation of solar collectors and photovoltaics (PVs) on the roof on the building to generate energy and by that decrease the energy use to the desired level.

3.1 Case study

Gillham (2000, p. 1) defines a case study as a unit of human activity embedded in the real world, it exists here and now and can only be studied and understood in its specific context. Precise boundaries for a case can be difficult to draw. A case could be an individual, a group of individuals, an institution such as a school or a factory or it could be a large-scale community such as a town, or district. A case study could be qualitative and/or quantitative. This study was focused on both qualitative and quantitative case studies which gave the possibility to combine and to verify the results from different sources. Alvehus (2013, p.20) describes in his book that qualitative case studies are about searching in depth to find meanings and correlations for the case in focus.

This method was appropriate to gain in-depth understanding for the Nydal project, Norrtälje Harbour and Rosendal projects as they are three different cases with different needs and conditions. Using a qualitative case study gave an understanding for the vision and sustainable goals of each district area and what actions and measures were going to be taken in order to fulfill the vision or goals. Quantitative studies were based on gathering data in order to perform calculations and make statistical analysis of the data to determine results and conclusions. The researchers then transferred the raw data into charts or diagrams to make descriptive data understandable (Denscombe, 2000, p.214). In this study, energy modeling was performed to calculate the energy performance in Smaragden. Simulations were also performed to analyze how different input data for the building envelope affects the output of the energy performance. Solar- heat and electricity calculations were also performed to simulate for more energy efficient building with local solar energy production on the roof of Smaragden.

3.2 Interview

Qualitative research methods are often based on interviews because it provides an effective tool for the qualitative researcher to integrate with the interviewee. The respondent could ask about feelings and motivations to know more about the sequence of events and how the interviewee feels and thinks about them (Alvehus, 2013).

There are different kinds of interviews: structured, semi-structured and unstructured interviews and the choice between them depend on the needs of the study. Structured interviews have predefined questions and sometimes even predefined options to answer which means that there is not much room for interaction between the respondent and the interviewee. Semi-structured interviews are the most common type used and consist of some open-ended questions or broader themes that the interview will be centered around. The interviewee has the possibility to influence the content of the interview and the interviewer has to be active and come with supplementary questions during the interview. Unstructured interviews are like an open conversation where the respondent is more in the background but still makes comments and gestures (Alvehus 2013, p. 80).

The respondent could ask about feelings and motivations to know more about the sequence of events and how the interviewee feels and thinks about them. Interviews can help the researcher to gather valid and reliable data that are relevant to the research objectives and questions. Interviews could also help with refining ideas to formulate research questions and objectives if they were not defined (Saunders et al., 2007). This study is as mentioned before, based on semi-structured interviews which consists of open-ended questions and broader themes that the interview was centered on (Alvehus, 2013). Sustainability and the energy use in buildings were the main themes for the interviews with the energy strategists in each municipality. The interview with Ann- Kristin Belkert was mainly about Citylab’s energy principle and how Citylab works when certificating different urban development projects. Semi-structured interviews made it is possible to influent on the content of the interview by coming up with supplementary questions during the interview (Alvehus, 2013). Interviews could also be differentiated to different types according to the nature of interaction between the researcher and the participant. The most common type is interviews on a one-to-one basis between the researcher and a single person and such interviews are often conducted by face-to-face meetings. However, some interviews could also be conducted by a telephone interview or by using the internet (Saunders et al., 2007). The interviews conducted in this study were mostly face-to-face and a few were e-mail interviews.

The choice of semi-structured interviews was preferable since it helps to understand the reasons behind decisions attitudes and opinions. Semi-structured interviews also provide the opportunity to “probe” by asking the follow-up questions for interviewees to explain or build on their answers (Saunders et al., 2007). Questions and supplementary questions were prepared before carrying out the interviews, to obtain detailed answers from the respondent while maintaining flexibility in the interview sessions. Another advantage with semi-structured is the ability to change the track for a while if the respondent would mention something of great interest and thereby access information that otherwise would have been missed (Saunder et al., 2007).

All interviews started by asking the respondents about their role in the municipality or organization to understand what they work with and to create a comfortable interview environment. All interviews were recorded and some notes were taken during the interview. In the end of the interviews, the respondents were asked of the possibility of sending any further questions that may come up later via e-mail, which all of them agreed on. After completing each interview, all interview notes were transcribed. Table 1 shows each respondent and the type of interview performed:

Table 1. Respondents

Person Organisation/company Date Type of interview

Christer Toftgård Norrtälje Energy 16/10-2015 E-mail interview

Martin Wetterstedt Knivsta municipality 19/10-2015 Face to face Martin Wetterstedt Knivsta municipality 06/11-2015 Face to face

Anders Hollinder Uppsala municipality 26/10-2015 Face to face Anders Hollinder Uppsala municipality 02/12-2015 Face to face

Carolina Sahlén Norrtälje Municipality 23/10-2015 Face to face Carolina Sahlén Norrtälje Municipality 26/11-2015 E-mail interview

Ann-Kristin Belkert SGBC 20/10-2015 Face to face

As seen above, there a total of five individuals were interviewed; with the energy strategists in each municipality. The reason for selecting these informants was to obtain information about how each municipality works with energy issues and energy strategy prior to the SGBC launch of Citylab in the 30th of November and after it.

3.3 IDA ICE

IDA ICE is a whole-year detailed and dynamic multi-zone simulation application for study of thermal indoor climate and energy consumption of an entire building. The physical models used in IDA ICE reflect on the latest research and models available and the computed results fit well with the measured data. IDA ICE is adapted to local languages and requirements such as climate data, special systems, standards, product and material data etc. A major advantage of the application is that the user interface is designed to make it easy to build and simulate both simple and advanced cases and it provides both 3D graphical and tabular feedback (EQUA, 2015). In this study, IDA ICE was used to simulate the energy consumption for the study building Smaragden with different limitations and requirements depending on each district. By simulating the desired energy consumption, several measures were identified to achieve a specific requirement such as passive house requirements. To perform the energy consumption simulation for Smaragden in IDA ICE, the drawings of the building and all the input files were needed. Josefin Envall who is an energy consultant at Ramboll AB in Uppsala provided the needed files to run the simulations. To learn more about how to use the software, the administrator in energy, indoor climate and environment Andreas Ceder, energy consultant at Ramboll, was interviewed. The following parameters were considered when simulating in the software:

. Building envelope . Walls . Windows . HVAC system (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) . Heat exchanger . Distribution losses . Hot water circulation

3.4 Polysun

Polysun simulation software is a design tool of solar thermal, heat pump and photovoltaic systems and combined systems and helps with the dimensioning (Polysun, 2015). In Smaragden solar collectors were being assembled on the roof in order to make savings in the domestic hot water use in the building. Solar heat simulations were therefore performed by using the online calculator in the solar heat software Polysun were data was fitted in according to the desired location to obtain the results.

3.5 PVgis

In order to simulate for installation of photovoltaics on the roof of Smaragden, the solar energy yield was necessary to be calculated. In order to calculate the solar energy yield, the webpage PVgis was used where there is an online solar photovoltaic energy calculator for stand-alone or connected to the grid systems and plants. The plants and grid systems can be situated in Europe, Africa and America (PVgis, 2015). PVgis is a tool to estimate the solar electricity production of a PV system and it gives the annual output power of solar photovoltaic panels. Smaragden today have no photovoltaics panels installed on the roof. To obtain the photovoltaic geographical information system, it uses google map application to make it easy to use (Photovoltaic software, 2015).

4. Urban development in a broader sustainability perspective

This section will introduce the theory which this thesis is based on. Sustainable development is presented first and it is of interest since buildings affect both the environment and the people living in them. Buildings use energy when produced and during operation, which implies there are impacts both locally and trough the energy systems they depend on. While we are becoming more aware of the environmental and climate consequences of human development on our planet, the building sector is highlighted since there is a great potential of improvements for sustainable urban development.

4.1 Sustainable development theory

The concept of sustainable development is a general principle for the entire United Nations system and the international community. It was first in 1972 where Sweden took initiative to host the first environmental conference in the history of the UN, to discuss and to set the first milestone in the work for sustainable development and global environmental policies. The definition of sustainable development was introduced many years later by the American environmental scientists and author Lester Brown in 1981, to be spread internationally in 1987 when the World Commission on Environment and Development or also called the Brundtland commission used it in its report “Our common future”. The Brundtland commission made the definition that sustainable development is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (FN, hållbar utveckling 2015). Today sustainable development is a highly contested subject. One interpretation is that sustainable development is “Development that meets the needs of the present while safeguarding earth’s life-support system, on which the welfare of current and future generations depends” (David Griggs et al., 2013). They thus argue that planetary stability must be integrated with United Nations targets to fight poverty and human well-being. The United Nations Rio+20 summit in Brazil in 2012 committed governments to launch a process to develop a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) built upon the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (United Nations, 2015). There were 17 SDGs defined and 163 targets that are integrated and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development which are: social, economic and environmental. The 11th goal is about sustainable cities and communities with the intention to make cities inclusive, resilient and sustainable (UN 2015, 2030 Agenda). Defining these goals was challenging since there could be conflict between individual goals such as energy provision and climate-change prevention. Griggs et al. (2013) show that it is possible by combining the MDGs with global environmental targets taken from science and existing international agreements and proposes six SDGs with provisional targets for 2030 (Griggs et al., 2013). These goals are illustrated in the figure 6.

Figure 6. New defined sustainable development goals (Griggs et al., 2013).

An excerpt of the six sustainable development goals was made in order to explain the most relevant ones for this study. The goals presented were SDG 4, SDG 5 and SDG 6.

SDG 4: Universal clean energy To have access to universal clean energy that minimizes local pollution and health impacts and mitigates global warming. The extension of this goal is to ensure at least a 50% probability of staying within 2˚ C warming, and aim for global greenhouse gas emissions to peak in 2015-2020. The goal also aims to decrease emissions by 3-5% per year until 2030 and to fall by 50-80% by 2050 (Griggs et al., 2013).

SDG 5: Healthy and productive ecosystems This goal combines the MDG environmental targets with the 2030 projections of the Aichi targets which are adopted by the Convention on Biological Diversity and it’s about sustaining biodiversity and ecosystem services through better management, measurement, valuation, conservation and restoration. More specifically, the rate of extinction should not exceed ten times the natural background rate and at least 70% of species in any ecosystem and 70% of forests should be retained. To safeguard areas for biodiversity, fisheries and ecosystem services of marine and aquatic ecosystems (Griggs et al., 2013).

SDG 6: Governance for sustainable development goals The aim of this goal is to transform governance and institutions at all levels to address the other five sustainable development goals. The goal is based on MDG partnerships and incorporate environmental and social targets into global trade, investment and finance. The goal implies to eliminate subsidies on fossil fuels and policies that support unsustainable agricultural and fisheries practices by 2020. The product prices should take into account environmental and social impacts. National systems for monitoring, reporting and verification must be established for sustainable development goals and to open access to information and to secure decision making processes at all levels (Griggs et al., 2013).

4.2 Planetary boundaries

There is growing evidence and real-world changes which convincingly show that humanity is driving global environmental changes. This is sometimes referred to as a new geological epoch called the Anthropocene (Griggs et al., 2013). Even though Earth has undergone many periods of significant environmental change, the environment of the planet has been unusually stable for the last 10 000 years (Rockström et al., 2009). This period of stability is known to geologists as the Holocene, and is the state under which ideal conditions apply for human civilizations to arise, develop and thrive. During this period, environmental change occurred naturally and the Earth’s regulatory capacity preserved the conditions that enabled human development. Since the Industrial Revolution, the new era called the Anthropocene has arisen, in which human actions have become the main driving force of global environmental change. It is threatening the stability of the Earth by pushing the Earth system outside the stable environmental state of the Holocene with detrimental or even catastrophic consequences for large parts of the world. The rapidly growing reliance on fossil fuels and industrialized forms of agriculture have today reached a level that could damage the desirable Holocene state of the Earth. To meet the challenges of keeping the Earth in the desirable Holocene state, Rockström et al. (2009) proposed a framework based on “planetary boundaries” which defines a safe operating space for humanity with respect to the Earth system. These boundaries are associated with the planet’s biophysical subsystems or processes. There were nine processes or subsystems found and each process has a threshold which can be defined as a critical value for one or more control variables, such as carbon dioxide concentration. Planetary boundaries are values for the control variables which are either at a “safe” distance from thresholds for those processes with evidence of threshold behavior, or at dangerous level for processes with no evidence for threshold. These results are uncertain since the true position of many thresholds is difficult to determine. The table below shows boundaries for the nine processes.

Table 2. Planetary boundaries, those in red have been crossed (Rockström et al., 2009)

Planetary boundaries Earth-system Parameters Proposed Current status Pre-industrial process boundary value Climate change (i) Atmospheric 350 387 280 carbon dioxide concentration (parts per million by volume) (ii) Change in 1 1.5 0 radiative forcing (watts per metre squared) Rate of Extinction rate 10 >100 0.1-1 biodiversity (number of species loss per million species per year) Nitrogen cycle Amount of N2 35 121 0 (part of a removed from the boundary with atmosphere for the phosphorus human use (millions cycle) of tonnes per year) Phosphorus Quantitiy of P 11 8.5-9.5 -1 cycle (part of a flowing into the boundary with oceans (millions of the nitrogen tonnes per year) cycle ) Stratospheric Concentration of 276 283 290 ozone ozone (Dobson unit) depletion Ocean Global mean 2.75 2.90 3.44 acidification saturation state of aragonite in surface sea water Global Consumption of 4,000 2,600 415 freshwater use freshwater by humans (km3 per year) Change in land Percentage of global 15 11.7 Low use land cover converted to cropland Atmospheric Overall particulate To be determined aerosol loading concentration in the atmosphere, on a regional basis Chemical For example, amount To be determined pollution emitted to, or concentration of

persistent organic pollutants, plastics endocrine disrupters, heavy metals and nuclear waste in, the global environment, or the effects on ecosystem and functioning of Earth system thereof.

The first three processes: climate change, rate of biodiversity loss and interference with the nitrogen cycle have already transgressed their boundaries. The climate change boundary is based on two critical thresholds which separates two different climate- system states. There are two parameters: atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and radiative forcing which is the rate of energy change per unit area of the globe when measured at the top of the atmosphere. The authors propose that the carbon dioxide concentration should not exceed 350 parts per million by volume, and the radiative force should not exceed 1 Watt per square meter above pre industrial levels. The rate of biodiversity loss is showing that species extinction has accelerated massively in the Anthropocene. There is a natural process for species extinction which occurs without human actions; fossil records show that the background rate of extinction for marine life is 0.1-1 extinction per million species per year. For mammals the rate is 0.2-0.5 extinctions per million species per year. The rate of extinction today is estimated to be 100 to 1000 times more than what is considered to be the natural rate. Human activities are the main cause of this acceleration, changes in land use and have also a significant effect where natural ecosystems are converted into agricultural or urban areas (Rockström et al., 2009).

Figure 7. The nine planetary systems. Those inner green shading represents the safe operating space for those systems (Rockström et al., 2009).

Michaelides (2012) argue that the global primary energy demand is satisfied mainly by non-renewable energy sources, such as oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear power. The time span to replenish these fuels is of the order of thousands of years while the rate of their consumption by far exceeds the rate of their replenishment. For this reason, it is obvious that these fuels will become scarce and will be exhausted in the future. The contemporary human civilization is based on the consumption of energy which is why the continuation of our civilization demands humans to ensure the adequate supply of renewable energy in the near future. It is then important that technologies for the utilization of solar, hydrogen, wind and geothermal energy must become more available in the future to satisfy the global energy demand and to ensure the continuation of our civilization (Michaledis E. 2012, p. 16).

4.3 Life cycle assessment

Energy sources affect the environment differently depending on their emissions, mainly carbon dioxide emissions. In order to analyze the energy sources that are included in the energy mix of each municipality, a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) perspective was considered. By reading LCA articles about the different energy sources, it was then possible to analyze the whole energy system and to determine the sustainability and the renewability of them.

LCA is a tool to measure and assess the environmental impact and resources used during the life cycle of a product or service, i.e., from acquisition of raw materials, via production and use phase and finally to waste management including disposal as well as recycling. The last years, climate change and environmental threats have come more into focus and to meet these challenges, environmental considerations have to be integrated with different types of decisions made by policy makers, business, individuals and public administrations (Finnveden et al., 2009).

LCA provides a comprehensive assessment and considers all aspects from natural environment, resources and human health with the focus on the life-cycle perspective. A big advantage with LCA is the usefulness of the comprehensive scope to avoid problem-shifting, for example from one phase to another of the life-cycle, from one region to another or from one environmental problem to another. LCA studies comprise four phases; Goal and Scope Definition, Life cycle Inventory Analysis (LCI), Life cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) and Interpretation. Phase one includes the reason for performing the study, the intended application and audience. System boundaries and the functional unit are described and defined in this phase. The functional unit is a quantitative measure of the functions provided by the product or service in study. The second phase which is the LCI provides a compilation of the inputs (resources) and the outputs (emissions) from the product or service during its life-cycle in relation to the functional unit. The LCIA gives an understanding and evaluation of the amount and significance of the potential environmental impacts of the system under study. The interpretation phase evaluates the results from the previous phases in relation to the

25 scope and goal to finally reach conclusions and recommendations (Finnveden et al., 2009).

4.4 A systems view of buildings

A system is a number of components that are related to each other and work together to a common goal. The planetary boundaries may be adversely affected by buildings as they use energy when produced and during operation which causes emissions of carbon dioxide, apart from using energy that may derive from non-renewable stocks. One way to determine the energy consumption of a building is to perform an energy simulation. Building energy performance depends on several factors, mainly the choice of the building envelope, different heat losses and the energy supplied to the building (volume and type). The choice of building envelope such as walls and windows have an impact on the buildings heat- and cooling needs. Better insulated building envelope means less heat leakage which in turn reduces the energy need in the building (Abel and Elmroth, 2013).

Abel and Elmroth (2013, p.117) describe the energy balance of a building Qenergy as the total value of the input and output energy of the building. Examining the energy balance of a building makes it possible to determine the energy i.e. the specific energy use of a building measured in kWh/m2/year. This value describes the heat- and electricity demand and is calculated using the equation below:

where Qt is referring to transmission losses through the buildings surrounding area (envelope), Qi is heat losses due to airing and air leakage, Qv is heat demand for ventilation, Qhw is the buildings hot water need, Qdr is distribution- and regulation losses, Wp is property electricity, Wh is household electricity, Qhr is heat recovery, Qc is heat contribution from internal loads from human activities and Qsun is heat contribution by solar radiation through windows (Abel and Elmroth 2013).

The energy balance of a building described by the equation above is illustrated in the figure 8 below:

Figure 8. Buildings energy balance (own figure)

4.4.1 Heat losses

The heat losses through different parts of the building’s envelope depend on their area, A [m2], and their heat transfer coefficient U [W/m2 K]. Transmission losses refer to the transportation of heat through the building envelope as soon as it is warmer inside than outside. The amount of heat transported through the envelope depends on the inside- and the outdoor temperature and the heat insulation of the building. Good heat insulation in outer walls, roof, floor, doors and windows limits the transmission losses which mean that the heating demand for the building will be low (Abel and Elmroth,

2013, p.117). The transmission losses per unit of time, ̇ , through the building’s enveloping surface is equal to the sum of all heat losses through the building’s envelope and is described in the equation below (Abel and Elmroth, p.129):

̇ ∑

where is the room temperature [˚C] and is the outdoor temperature. Heat losses due to air leakage is mainly determined by the tightness of the different components that the building envelope consists of such as windows and walls etc. and how well assembled they are. The equation for heat losses due to air leakage is described below 3 where ̇ is air leakage through building envelope [m /s]:

̇ ̇ ̇

3 Where [kg/m ] is air density and [ks/(kg·K)] is the specific heat capacity (Abel and Elmroth, p. 129).

Distribution- and regulation losses differ and can be divided in two parts. Distribution losses are such as friction losses in pipelines and heat losses from these pipelines. These

27 losses occur in distribution pipelines for heat and domestic hot water lines. Hot water circulation is an example of big distribution losses since the hot water circulates all year. Short and centrally located pipelines could decrease distribution losses. Regulation losses mean that the regulation of the buildings temperature results in a difference between the desired temperature and the indoor temperature in different rooms. The difference in temperature depends on the building’s heat system design, commissioning, control ability and also incentive to maintain a certain temperature indoors (Abel and Elmroth, p.120).

4.4.2 Ventilation

The amount of outside airflow desired or required in residential buildings depends mainly on how many people will use the building. According to Elmroth and Abel (2013, p.118), the requirements normally imply that more than half of the air changes per hour. The heat needed for ventilation depends on how much air is going to be heated to room temperature and the outdoor temperature. Appropriate air flow is one of the most important factors to obtain good indoor air quality. To recover heat from the ventilation air before it exits the building reduces both the heat demand as well as the designed heat output (Elmroth and Abel, 2003, p.118).

4.4.3 National Board for Housing requirements 22 (BBR 22)

There are general requirement that a building does not exceed a certain annual number of kilowatt hours per square meter. The building's energy usage according to the National Board for Housing is the amount of energy that is needed to be delivered to the building during normal annual energy consumption. These requirements apply to the energy delivered to the building for heating, comfort cooling, domestic hot water and energy for building. Household energy consumption is not counted. There are different requirements depending on where in Sweden the building is located (BFS, 2015). The table below shows the requirements of the National Board for Housing where Smaragden is located in zone III and is without electrical heating:

Table 3. Requirements for the specific energy use for heating apartment buildings according to BBR 22. Building’s specific Climate zone I Climate zone II Climate zone III Climate zone IV energy use [kWh/m2, year] Apartment 85 65 50 45 buildings with electrical heating Apartment 115 100 80 75 buildings without electrical heating

4.4.4 FEBY12

The Swedish criteria for zero-energy houses, passive houses and mini-energy houses was developed by an expert group appointed by the Forum for energy efficient buildings (FEBY). The responsibility has now been taken over by the Swedish Centre for zero-energy houses (SCNH), which is a compound for the development and deployment of energy efficient construction (SCNH, 2012).

Passive houses are buildings that have a high comfort, good quality, use minimal energy and that contribute to the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions (SCNH, 2012). The European Union has through the directive EPDB1 imposed building regulations on member states. The energy use regulations for passive house are the following:

Table 4. Requirements for the specific energy use for passive houses according to FEBY12 2 [kWh/m Atemp, år] Climate zone I Climate zone II Climate zone III

Max non-electrical heated 58 54 50

Max electrical heated 29 27 25

4.5 Solar energy

In this study, solar panels were considered to be installed on the roof of Smaragden for the case of Nydal in order to produce local renewable energy and thus improve the energy efficiency of the building. The interest for renewable energy has increased significantly since the beginning of the 1990s and the market for renewable energy is still growing. Considering the increasing environmental concerns, solar energy will be more important for both homeowners as well as municipalities, private property managers and energy companies. Solar collectors generate heat and are mostly interesting where need for heating is consistent with availability of solar radiation. Solar collectors are mainly important for facilities with hot water needs during the summer. Solar power generates electricity through photovoltaics (PVs) (Svensk solenergi, 2015).

The rating of a solar module or a PV is the power (in watts) produced by the solar module under standard illumination conditions at the maximum power point. This rating is called the “peak watt”, (Chen, 2011. P. 25). The Performance Ratio or also called the energy yield, U [kWh/kW], is the ratio between the actual production of electricity and the target yield. The equation below shows the energy produced by the PV system (Green Rihno energy, 2015):

To determine the total energy output from the installed photovoltaics, called Etotal , the specific amount of energy delivered by PVs, called Especific times the internal surface floor area is calculated. The energy produced by the PVs is equal to the total energy output from the installed PVs (Green Rhino Energy, 2015).

(5)

5. Results

This section presents the results obtained in this thesis starting by presenting and explaining the energy principle specified in Citylab in more details. Then, the energy strategy in each district area is presented and explained to get an insight in how each district area works with the energy use issues. Since the building sector have an impact on the environment, the energy use in each district area was assessed. The energy mix was also scrutinized since what energy source is used to supply the district area with electricity or heat implies different impacts on the environment, which is why the renewability rate for the energy mix was also calculated.

5.1 Citylab Energy principle

When it comes to the main goal of the energy principle specified in Citylab, Ann- Kristin Belkert who is the head of Citylab in SGBC tells that the fact that the energy use should be minimized and GHG emissions should be close to zero involves many social aspects and not only quantities of emissions. According to her, it is about behavioral issues among the people living in a certain area and how to get these people to use public transport, bike and walk more for example. Then GHG emissions works as an indicator for climate neutrality. It is possible to calculate and analyze the emissions caused by the energy use, transport and waste. Every urban development project has a model for climate neutrality that it follows, for example the project of the North Djurgårdsstaden in Stockholm follows the Clinton Climate Initiative and other urban development projects may follow other similar models depending on their resources and so on. What Citylab wants is to maintain the flexibility of choosing different ways or models for achieving long-term climate neutrality and after a while find a standard overall model that could be used by all urban development projects (Belkert, 2015).

When it comes to the use of renewable energy, a requirement or a limit for how much energy should originate from renewable energy sources is not defined yet in Citylab, so every project has to specify their plans for use of renewable energy sources. What

Citylab is going to do next is to develop assessment criteria for the sustainability program that each project presents and then decide whether the energy strategy presented could be justified with regards to the projects conditions and if there is a long- term energy strategy for improvements, then the project could be certified. It would not be acceptable if a project´s sustainability program had the goal of 0 % renewable energy. Another important aspect in the follow-up phase of a project, where projects should follow up their goals and criteria. is the calculation of climate impact and health effects caused by energy consumption for the area and the people living in it (Citylab, SGBC). Belkert commented on that point by concluding that the use of different energy sources affects the environment and people differently. That is why projects should present detailed calculations of indicators such as carbon dioxide equivalents. How detailed these calculations are is not defined yet but it will be presented in the user’s guide that will be developed next year together with experts in different areas such as energy (Belkert, 2015).

The following sections will present the difference between how the district areas Rosendal, Nydal and Norrtälje Harbor traditionally works with energy strategies compared to the energy principle specified in Citylab.

5.1.1 Rosendal, Uppsala

Rosendal is the project that is in the most advanced stage compared to the other two projects which is why there is a more developed strategy and measures for achieving sustainability goals. The energy strategist in Uppsala municipality Anders Hollinder explains that there is a strategy for Rosendal to minimize GHG emissions and to use renewable energy sources based on the municipality’s own energy strategy described earlier. The fact that the GHG emissions should be close to zero is harder to work with since it is not defined in Citylab, which is why Uppsala municipality will as the project progresses, decide how low their GHG emissions should be. When it comes to presenting the use of renewable energy sources, Hollinder mentions that it is done by presenting the district heating use for the municipality. Even though the district heating in Uppsala may not have a high percentage of renewable energy sources, the situation will change in the future since Vattenfall AB is planning to invest in a biofuel boiler before 2020. The percentage of renewable energy sources will be examined in detail later on in the study. Presenting the projects´ objectives regarding the net GHG emissions from buildings, infrastructure and transport has not been performed in the municipality but now that Citylab Action has been launched, it is planned to be done in the future (Hollinder, 2015).

When it comes to measures and actions for achieving sustainability goals, there are several actions in the municipality:

. Land allocation competitions for property developers where they can present their best concept for sustainable building process and where solar energy solutions are included somehow.

. Car pools . Bicycle repair shops . Local cultivation.

Follow-up project measures are done continuously before the building permit where the municipality together with the property developer designs and plans the project. There is also a follow-up process for the energy use in buildings, one year and two years after the project ends. However there is no following up for the use of renewable energy sources. Alternative scenarios for energy supply in Uppsala municipality have not been investigated yet.

Considering the Kyoto pyramid mentioned in the Citylab Action principle (as presented on page 9), in general it is followed by the municipality but it’s more seen as an ideal model which means that financial constraints could set limits for how much the model could be followed. Hollinder mentions that following up climate effects is easier to perform than following up health impacts in the area because it is more difficult to analyze the people health and how it is affected by for example decreased amount of GHG emissions.

5.1.2 Nydal, Knivsta

The Nydal project is at an early stage of the planning process and not built yet which makes it hard to compare the energy strategy for the project with Citylabs energy principle. The energy strategist in Knivsta municipality, Martin Wetterstedt, thinks the energy goal set by Citylab is a bit vague when it comes to the GHG emissions that should be close to zero, so it needs more specification. He explains that in Knivsta municipality, there is an energy strategy that buildings should fulfill the requirements for mini energy houses defined in Feby 12 which is a summary of requirements specification for residential buildings, issued by the Acronym (2012). Mini-energy house is a requirement level between the level of requirements for passive house and BBR 19, but with the same requirements as for passive house, which means that the losses are kept at a substantially lower level than BBR19.

For Nydal, there is a will that buildings could follow the requirements for passive houses but it has not been decided yet. Knivsta has presently no strategy or regulations considering the net GHG emissions from buildings, infrastructure and transport. When it comes to measures for achieving sustainability goals for the municipality, there is not much documented and there are only fuzzy actions to be implemented to achieve set goals including any certification requirements for buildings. Wetterstedt did however mention that one action is the mini energy house requirements that the municipality has today, it is then a step towards developing a manual for actions to achieve sustainability goals. When asking Wetterstedt about the follow-up process of targets and measures of urban development projects; he explained that there was often no follow-up process for projects at all or poor structure and strategy for following-up projects. This area could

32 be improved when the Nydal project evolves and reaches further stages (Wetterstedt, 2015).

5.1.3 Norrtälje Harbor

According to the sustainability project manager at Norrtälje municipality Carolina Sahlén (2015), it is hard to specify the difference between how the municipality traditionally works with energy use issues in the project Norrtälje Harbour or in other projects in Norrtälje because of several reasons. First of all, Norrtälje Harbor is the first urban development project of its kind in Norrtälje and it is not built yet, secondly there are no other or older projects to compare the specifications of Citylab with. Also the fact that the law is limiting what the municipality can require regarding energy systems makes it harder to develop an energy strategy.

What is important to mention is that Norrtälje municipality will set energy targets and work towards minimization of energy use in different ways, for example introducing requirements for illumination solutions for buildings. In January 2016, the municipality will start working on its sustainability program according to Citylab but it is not decided yet what target area will be addressed first. When it comes to presenting the use of renewable energy sources, targets will be set regarding heat and electricity even though it is harder to set targets regarding the electricity. Regarding the net emissions of GHG gases, an LCA-perspective for buildings and infrastructure will be used and the public transport will prioritized by developing new bus lines, a car pool, actions to promote biking and possibly a boat pool (Sahlén, 2015).

Sahlén mentions some actions to achieve sustainability program goals which are:

. Since municipalities cannot require building certifications, they will try to steer the property developers in a direction that makes it relevant for some neighborhoods. . Energy and climate ambitions will be in the land allocation competitions, as well as encouraging local production of electricity and heat. The sustainability program will be featured in future land allocation provided. . The municipality is developing areas so all of them could connect to the district heating system. . Climate Calculations is planned to be used for the evaluation and optimization of buildings and infrastructure regarding direct emissions and energy use. . For building that the municipality will build, attempts will be made to introduce solar electricity production. Norrtälje Harbor has a sunny south facing position for almost all neighborhoods which gives good locations for solar energy

When it comes to the follow-up of targets and measures, there will be a plan for following-up projects when the sustainability targets and measures are set by the municipality.

5.2 Renewability and sustainability

Renewable energy comes from flow limited sources, i.e. kinds of energy that are constantly renewed such as hydropower, solar- and wind energy. Bioenergy is commonly also considered renewable since it comes from biomass from the forestry sector, which arguably is also constantly renewed (Jordbuksverket, 2014). However, biomass from forestry, and agricultural production is highly mechanized which implies also non-renewable inputs such as fossil fuels may be applied in different stages of the production cycles, hence also affecting the overall renewability. The definition renewable is also very broad since it covers different kinds of energy sources. In the following sections, each energy source mentioned above will be further discussed to determine the share of renewability for each one from a system perspective. This was done in order to analyze the energy mix of each project and how it affects overall sustainability from an energy use perspective?

While hydro-, wind and geothermal power can be considered renewable energy sources, the renewability still depends on the whole energy system, i.e. not only the source but also the extraction, processing and distribution, etc. During all the different stages of generating energy until it reaches the end user, technology, material and energy is used which to various degrees are often not renewable. Therefore, when the various energy sources are looked at from a system perspective, it is difficult to consider any source as hundred percent renewable. However, different energy sources can be rated as relatively more or less renewable, i.e. the renewability rate can be compared. Further, an energy source can be renewable but is therefore not necessarily sustainable since they could have an unacceptable negative impact on the environment in terms of e.g. GHG emission, biodiversity loss, health or social impacts on humans. In this study energy sources are analyzed from both a renewability and sustainability perspective. The resulting unit of this analysis is called “renewability rate” in this study. Assumptions will then be made by decreasing the renewability rate of an energy source depending on the factors described below.

. Flow limitations: flow limited resources flows continuously without resulting in storage, such as sunlight, winds, rain, tidal force etc. These resources are limited in terms of the rate of inflow and how much can be harnessed. (Odum, 1996). If an energy source has a limited flow below the human use of it, it is assumed to decrease the renewability rate by 100 percent, i.e. be considered as non- renewable.

. Stock limitations: the resources that have been stored and accumulated during longer periods of gradual environmental production are called stock limited resources. They result in an accumulation of for example oil, biomass, minerals etc. When the use of stock limited resources is faster than their reproduction by environmental processes, it is hence limited in terms of the stocked amount

available for extraction (Odum, 1996). If the energy source is being imported or exported between countries or municipalities, it would also be considered as a stock limited energy source since there is limitation in the quantity and availability for use of humankind (Odum, 1996) and therefore has been assumed to decrease the renewability rate by 20 percent.

. Non-renewable resources: if the extraction, process or distribution of an energy source requires non-renewable resources, it is assumed to decrease the renewability rate by 15 percent. However, if the source per se is non-renewable, the renewability rate should be set to 0%.

100 90 80 70 60 50 % decrease of 40 renewability rate 30 20 10 0 Flow limitations Stock limitations Non-renewable resources

Figure 9. A decrease rate of the renewability of energy sources

5.2.1 Energy mix

In this section, the heat- and electricity mix in each study area was analyzed regarding the renewability rate for different energy sources. Data for the district heating fuel mix was provided from SGBC’s website. Data for electricity was more difficult to find, since the electricity market in Sweden is decentralized and customers are free to choose electricity supplier. Hence no specific suppliers for each study area were possible to identify. An assumption was therefore made based on annual statistics national averages from the Scandinavian countries through Nordel; a cooperation between the transmission system operators in Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Sweden to create an effective and harmonized Nordic electricity market (Nordel, 2008). Figure 10 shows the different shares of energy sources which are included in the Nordic energy mix:

3% 1% 1% Nuclear power 0,24% 5% Hydro power 1% 20% 0,43% 5% Coal

6% Oil Peat Natural gas Refinery gas Biofuel Wind power 58% Waste Geothermal power

Figure 10. Nordic electricity mix

In order to calculate the renewability rate of the Nordic mix (i.e. % renewable electricity), estimations were performed based on scientific articles and LCAs of the different energy sources. This assessment emphasized how renewable each energy source is with respect to the environmental impact of the energy source itself, i.e. fossil resources or other.

5.2.2 Wind power

Wind power is driven by renewable flux (i.e. a flow limited energy source) in the form of kinetic energy in air streams (Arvesen and Hartwich, 2012). However, from a lifecycle perspective there are a wide range of non-renewable resources and harmful emissions associated with converting the kinetic energy in the wind into electrical energy (Davidsson et al., 2014) which may affect overall sustainability. Life cycle assessments (LCA) of wind power have been performed to quantify the environmental and resource pressure. Arvesen and Hartwich (2012) argue that wind power contributes to GHG emissions by presenting results from LCA for onshore wind power. The LCA included energy use and air pollutants associated with production and combustion of fossil energy carriers which were summarized by GHG emissions. In this study only onshore wind power was considered since they make up the majority of wind power in the world. According to Arvesen and Hartwich (2012), GHG emissions for a medium wind turbine (100 KW- 1 MW) were 19 g CO2 equivalents /kWh.

When considering the Nordic electricity mix, 10,2 TWh comes from wind power which corresponds to around 19 000 ton of CO2 equivalents. An important observation is that these emissions occur at one occasion; when wind turbines are produced. Since a standard wind turbine has a life time of 20 years, these emissions would be divided by the lifetime. The conclusion is that GHG emissions would then be around 950 ton CO2 equivalents / year. This means that even though wind power may be considered a

36 renewable source, impacts associated with the energy system as a whole implies it is not 100 percent sustainable.

When it comes to the resource requirements of wind power, Davidsson et al. (2014) explains that wind turbines are roughly divided in two categories: geared- and gearless turbines. The turbines operate with either a speed limited or a variable speed concept where the variable speed turbines use significant amount of scarce materials in their design. A widely used generator concept for wind power uses significant amount of rare earth elements. However, wind turbines also require a large amount of other materials, such as copper and steel which are considered as resource requirements. Davidsson et al. (2014) made the assumption that 1 MW of wind capacity requires a total of 140 tons of iron and steel and 2 tons of copper. It means that for sustaining a 24 TW wind capacity leads to significant annual requirements for copper and steel. Considering the made assumptions, the 24 TW of wind energy would require the equivalent of 11 % of total global steel production and 14 % of global copper production (based on 2012 rates of production) (Davidsson et al., 2014).

The resource requirements for wind turbines in terms of the metals described above is considered in this study as non-renewable resources since their extraction rates exceed reproduction rate. The use of non-renewable resources affects the overall sustainability of the wind power system and it also affect the renewability rate of the system. Taking into account the assumption made in this study that the use of non-renewable resources decreases the renewability rate by 15 percent, wind power is then considered as 85 percent renewable.

5.2.3 Hydro power

When examining the environmental impact of hydro power, the results could differ a lot depending on what aspects were considered. Based on 39 LCAs published between 1996 and 2010, (Radaal et al, 2011) identified the two major sources of emissions for hydro power as being generated by activities related to the building of dams, dikes and power stations and decomposition of biomass from the flooded land by the reservoir, releasing CO2 and CH4 emissions (Radaal et al., 2011). The study showed a large variety in the range of GHG emissions, from 0,2 to 152 g CO2 equivalents per kWh. The large variety was explained by differences in GHG emissions from flooded land. By excluding GHG emissions from flooded land from reservoir, the mean GHG emissions and the standard deviation are significantly reduced to an average value of 2.9 g CO2/kWh. This shows that the amount of GHG emissions differ whether emissions from flooded land is counted or not which affects the reliability of how renewable hydro power really is.

Figure 11. Emission of CO2 equivalent/kWh from different reservoir hydro

As seen in figure 11, the mean GHG emissions for reservoir hydro including gross emissions from flooded land is around 30 g CO2/kWh which is higher than the mean value for wind power. However, the gathered data could be misleading since it does not represent the “net” emissions from the reservoirs; but more often gross emissions when measuring fluxes over reservoirs. Today there is a consensus that most natural lakes and rivers are also major sources of GHG emissions since carbon flushed into water from the surrounding ecosystems evaporates (Radaal et al., 2011). However, when excluding the GHG emissions from flooded land in reservoir hydro power, LCAs show that infrastructure contributes to 55-99,6 percent of the total GHG emissions. Concrete production and the transportation of rocks in the construction of dams and tunnels were then the major contributors (Radaal et al., 2011).

Evaluating the sustainability of hydro power was more complicated than other energy sources since the GHG emissions largely differed depending on different scenarios. There is no certain answer about the “net” emissions from flooded land in reservoir hydro power. In this study the worst scenario was considered where GHG emissions from flooded land are counted. Consideration was also taken for GHG emissions associated with the construction and transportation of material to build dams and tunnels which occur at one occasion during the lifetime of a hydro power dam. Since the mean GHG emissions from hydro power were higher than the corresponding value for wind power, hydro power was considered less sustainable. The renewability rate then depends on the use of non-renewable resources which also occurs in the building of dams which decreases the renewability rate by 15 percent according to the assumption standard set in this thesis. Therefore hydro power is in this study considered as 85 percent renewable.

5.2.4 Biofuel

Biofuels can be raw material, such as sawdust or other biomass that have undergone a chemical and biological process or transformation such as into pellets. The use of biofuels is large in the forest industry where their own waste products or by-products are used to run industrial processes. Biofuels included in the Swedish statistics are roughly divided into five categories:

. Wood fuels, refined and unrefined. In the refined part there are fuels such as pellets and briquettes, in the unrefined part there are bark, sawdust, branches and coppice. . By-products from chemical pulp production such as pine oil. . Biological waste from households, such as cardboard, paper, food and more. . Landfill and digester gas (biogas) . Biofuels and bio-oils including ethanol, biodiesel, also called agrofuels

In Sweden, 90 percent of the biofuel comes from the forestry sector (Energimyndigeten, Biobränsle 2015). To determine how renewable biofuel is, some of the categories used in Sweden are described and discussed below.

When it comes to biomass residues and waste, these are material of biological origin such as waste and by-products from agriculture, forestry, agriculture- or forest industries and households. This means they were not produced specifically for use as an energy resource but result from economic activity and production of goods in many sectors of the economy. As such they may not be considered energy sources. Rather it is an opportunistic way to turn waste into a useful form, i.e. energy. The diversion of bio waste to energy does not usually increase environmental pressure but there are some exceptions. The removal of forestry or agricultural residues from land reduces the carbon storage capacity in carbon pools like soil, dead wood or litter which can also deplete soil nutrients. Another exception is that creating a market for biomass residues and by-products, giving an additional income stream, can result in production of the main commodity, such as timber, economically more attractive. This may result in expansion of the land use which may have negative environmental impacts, for example if native forests are being replaced. Besides biomass residues and wastes, there are dedicated crops that are grown for energy, i.e. agro fuels which may also produce non- energy by-products. These crops can contribute to GHG emissions of N2O which evolves from nitrogen fertilizer application and organic matter in soil. Emissions vary depending on soil type, crop, climate, fertilizer and manure application rates. When considering the bioenergy system as a whole, it requires non-renewable energy for the production, transport and conversion to bioenergy (Cherubini et al., 2009).

According to Saracoglu and Gunduz (2009), pellets are considered a renewable indigenous fuel which means it is produced and used locally. Today it is however being exported and imported between countries which imply transportation emissions, impact and costs are added. Sweden is one of the countries that imports pellets, problems could

39 therefore arise when it is a standstill in exports because then it would not be an available energy source.

When determining how renewable biofuel is from a system perspective, many aspects are being counted. Bioenergy is for many energy suppliers generally considered a renewable energy source but the fact that biomass production needs the use of agricultural land and technology, makes the renewability rate questionable. Agricultural land is a scarce resource on the planet, several countries, including most of East Asia and Africa cannot afford to divert scarce agricultural land for energy crop production. Every parcel of land is simply needed to feed their populations (Michaelides, 2012).

Swedish biofuels mainly come from the forestry sector so it is often considered renewable. All these aspects and most of all the stock limitation of pellets, according to the assumption made in this study, decrease the renewability rate by 20 percent. Due to this reason, bioenergy was assumed to be 80 percent renewable.

5.2.5 Nuclear power

According to Zafrilla et al. (2014), the advantages of nuclear energy are well known; low carbon emissions, energy security goals and decreasing the dependence on fossil fuels. These advantages could be criticized since the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown in 2011 which opened a debate driven by environmental activists and political parties highlighting that nuclear advantages are far from clear. In addition to the security aspect, nuclear power’s greatest environmental impact is radiation hazards and negative environmental impacts associated with extracting uranium from the ground and when nuclear waste is disposed of in the bedrock (Naturvårdverket, 2015). Uranium is the substance used as a fuel in most nuclear reactors around the world and in all reactors in Sweden. The process from mining the uranium ore until the fuel ends up in final repository is very long and demands a lot of energy.

Uranium is radioactive and can be found naturally in the bedrock, and thus has been formed under millions of years. In Sweden there is a lot of uranium but in a low concentration, around 2,5 gram/ton (Kemaka AR, 2010) , which makes it economically unfeasible to extract it, which why the process occurs in other countries (Swedish radiation safety Authority, 2013). Due to the low concentration of Uranium, it is considered as a stock limited, fossil source, which implies in the long run it may be depleted and hence should be considered non-renewable. When determining the renewability rate of nuclear power, it was considered as a stock limited energy source since the energy fuel i.e. Uranium, is a fossil source. In this study, this limitation decreases the renewability rate by 100 percent, nuclear energy is then considered as a non-renewable energy source.

5.2.6 Fossil fuels

Fossil fuels are the largest source of GHG emissions that contribute to climate change. Fossil fuels consist of organic carbon and hydrogen compounds that have been stored for millions of years in sediment and bedrock. They originate from small aquatic animals, plants that have died and settled on the bottom of seas and lakes which eventually remained buried under increasingly thick layers of sediment and put through increasing pressure and temperature (Naturvårdsverket, 2015).

Coal, oil and natural gas are still renewed but at a very slow pace which is why they are considered non-renewable energy sources, In other words, extraction rates exceed reproduction rate (Naturvårdsverket, 2015).

According to the Swedish environmental protection agency, peat is also considered a fossil fuel although it is renewed faster than coal, oil and natural gas. Peat originates from biomass that is partly digested. Peat soils grow very slowly and there is a huge amount of carbon in peat storage (Naturvårdverket, 2015). Peat affects the climate in several ways, peat lands contribute to GHG emissions, mainly carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Peat extraction also contributes to GHG emissions depending on where it is extracted and how the land is treated afterwards. In this study, coal, oil and peat are considered non-renewable energy sources.

5.2.7 Waste

Jones et al. (2013) determined the content of fossil carbon in waste combusted in Sweden. Solid waste and flue gas were analyzed and the samples of waste were partly industry waste and partly municipal solid waste. The conclusion was that there were no big differences between carbon dioxide content in industrial waste and municipal solid waste and the carbon content was determined to an average of 48 percent (Jones et al., 2013). In Sweden, so-called yellow waste was imported between 1996 and 2002 for energy recovery and it consists of separated wood waste and mixes of used wood and paper or plastics. Plastic is a petroleum derivate and therefore a non-renewable recourse (Olofsson et al., 2005). When determining the renewability rate of waste, several aspects need to be taken into account. Waste as an energy source itself is considered in this study as non-renewable because in an efficient society there would be no waste produced from households, communities, industries etc. The fact that waste is being imported makes it also as a stock limited resource which means that if there were no waste to import, then there would be a stop in heat production from waste. It also implies that the demand for waste as an energy source in one nation may exceed the production within that same nation so it needs to be imported. Thus the use of waste exceeds the reproduction rate, which characterizes non-renewable energy sources. As a consequence of the discussion that waste is both a flow limited and stock limited energy source and consists of non-renewable energy sources, it is considered in this study as non-renewable energy source.

5.2.8 Geothermal power

Geothermal energy origins from Earth’s interior, for instance, from hot springs, heat energy in subsurface layers or from geysers. In theory, the energy source is inexhaustible since the heat is derived from the pressure of overlying layers. Generally, geothermal power is considered a relatively benign energy source regarding environmental impacts. One drawback is the CO2 emissions to the atmosphere associated with geothermal power production even though it has been shown to be much less than emissions from fossil fuel power plants (Armannson et al., 2005). Figure

12 shows the CO2 emissions from geothermal power and other energy sources. Recent studies of CO2 emissions from geothermal or volcanic systems have demonstrated that large quantities of CO2 are released naturally. In many cases, natural emissions exceed emissions from geothermal power production (Armannson et al., 2005).

Figure 12. CO2 emissions from various types of power plants (Hunt, 2000)

Geothermal power flows continually and is considered inexhaustible source which why it is considered a renewable energy source. The level of sustainability depends then on the amount of GHG emissions which as shown in figure 12, almost as much as for hydro power. Geothermal power is in this study considered 100 percent renewable.

Table 5. Summary renewability of all energy sources analyzed in this study

Energy source Renewability Wind power 85 % Hydro power 85 % Biofuel 80 % Nuclear power 0 % Fossil fuel 0 % Peat 0 %

Waste 0 % Geothermic power 100 %

According to the assumption above of how renewable each energy source is, the renewability rate for Nordic electric mix could be calculated, see Appendix A.

Table 6. Renewability rate of the Nordic mix Renewability Nordic electric mix 55,91 %

When calculating the renewability rate of the heat mix in each project, the electricity was considered to be produced from the Nordic mix as none of the municipals require the future buildings owners to purchase green electricity. The following parameters were used to calculate the renewability rate of the Nordic electric mix:

. The energy performance for the building Smaragden when considering the energy requirements in each project . The net area of each project to calculate the total amount of energy use in the whole district area or in a part of the district area. . The share of each energy source in the purchased heat mix for each project. . The renewability percentage for each energy source.

5.3 Rosendal, Uppsala

5.3.1 Uppsala municipality climate and energy agenda

Uppsala municipality has developed an energy and climate program from 2014 until 2023 and there are eight impact goals which summarize the guidelines for the sustainable development of the city. The first impact goal is that Uppsala should have renewable and climate neutral heating before 2020 (Uppsala Kommun, 2014). Today, the district heating is provided by the company Vattenfall AB in Uppsala. The district heat includes fossil fuels such as peat and fractions from the disposal waste from the plastics used in Uppsala. The energy mix for Uppsala is illustrated in figure 13.

Waste 4% 5% Peat 3% 6% 0,1% Pellets

6% 48% Unrefined biofuel

Oil

Flue gas condensate 28% Electricity

Heat prod. From boilers

Figur 13. Heat mix in Uppsala Municipality

Table 7. Heat mix in Uppsala municipality Fuel GWh Share [%] Waste 1 106,1 47,5 Oil 72,1 3,2 Pellets 145,6 6 Biofuel 3,1 0,1 Peat 641,6 27,5 Flue gas condensate 138,6 6 Electricity 121,3 5,2 Heat prod. from boilers 101,8 4,5 Total 2330,3

The electricity share (5,2 %) presented above was assumed to origin from nordic electricity mix with the renewability rate 55,91 % as calculated earlier. The goal for Uppsala municipality is that the use of oil boilers and other fossil fuels should gradually be phased out until 2020. According to Hollinder, Vattenfall is planning to make an investment and install a new biofuel boiler before 2020. It will replace the existing peat- fire boiler. However, the goal to be climate neutral will not be achieved as a significant fraction of the solid waste consists of fossil plastics. The remaining solid waste counts as renewable and carbon neutral (Hollinder, 2015). The strategy to reduce the plastic content is through increased recycling, waste minimization and use of renewable materials. When it comes to the oil-fired boiler, it is used as backup power and to cope with peak demand during extra cold days.

Impact goal 4 is about energy efficiency which is necessary in order to phase out fossil fuels to renewable energy and to move towards a society with low environmental and climate change. Uppsala is a growing city and there is an increasing demand for new construction and renovation of existing buildings. Buildings account for about 40

44 percent of the total energy use in Sweden and has been a major contributor of the spreading and exposure of chemicals in society (Uppsala Kommun, 2014).

Impact goal 7 is about increasing sustainable construction and administration as this is essential for the human health and environment. The objective of this goal is that Uppsala Municipality promotes a non-toxic, resource and energy-efficient building and management policy so it can become one of the leading municipalities in Sweden in terms of sustainable building in 2020. To achieve this goal, an industry voluntary program for construction and renovation is established by 2016 and gradually implemented. All development projects owned by the municipality should develop and apply sustainable construction programs in cooperation with the municipality.

When it comes to building on land owned by the municipality, the municipality makes demands systematically according to their sustainability goals as part of the procurement process (Hollinder, 2015).

5.3.2 Rosendal energy consumption

The energy use for the building Smaragden was calculated and compared with the requirements for newly constructed buildings according to the National Board of Housing requirements 19 (BBR 19). District heating is the main heating source for the building and the specific energy consumption has been calculated to 60,8 kWh/m2/year compared to the minimum requirement of 80 kWh/m2/year. The mean U-value which is the heat transfer coefficient for the building was calculated to 0,322 W/m2 (IDA ICE). The U-value indicates the insulation properties for a layer of material (Abel and Elmroth, 2013). According to the calculations, Smaragden can manage the requirements of the National Board of Housing 19 with respect to the energy use and heat transfer coefficient. The energy consumption is estimated to be less than 70% of the requirements of the National Board of Housing 19 (Byggnadsrapport Smaragden).

The tables below show the energy simulation for Smaragden done in IDA ICE:

Table 8. Building information Building 2 Building area [Atemp] 6588.0 m Building footprint area 1414.0 m2 Mean U-value for building envelope 0.322 W/(K·m2)

Table 9. Building energy use Used energy kWh kWh/m2 Lightning, facility 9183 1.4 Equipment, facility 11037 1.7 Electric cooling 6129 0.9 HVAC aux 59764 9.1 Total property electricity 86113 13.1

Total building hot water 195616 29.7

Total building heating 118793 18.0 Total 400522 60.8

Table 9 shows the energy supplied to the building and how the consumption is divided between different end-users. What is important to observe is the total energy consumption of the building which is 60.8 kWh/m2 according to the model. This complies with the requirements of the National Board of Housing in Sweden which are 80 kWh/m2 for this type of building (BBR 22). When it comes to domestic hot water use, the standard reference value is 25 kWh/m2 (Svebyprogrammet, 2012). The higher energy usage for Smaragden could be explained by energy losses due to high water flow in the showers or due to poor insulation in the hot water circulation, according to Andreas Ceder, Ramboll. This means that there is room for energy savings to reduce the domestic hot water use to at least 25 kWh/m2. Another reason behind the high usage of hot water could be that Smaragden is constructed to have small area per person. It means that the area of each apartment is small but the water use needs is the same which makes the total energy use be divided on fewer square meters and thus enhance the value of hot water use.

Regarding district heating, the more isolated the building is, the lower the need for district heating. It means that better isolated walls and windows with low U-value helps to decrease the value. Heat recovery of the air circulation also plays a role in decreasing the need for district heating.

5.3.3 Renewability rate

The heat mix for Rosendal was dominated by waste (47,5 %) which was considered as 0% renewable and Peat (27,5 %) which is considered as a fossil fuel and therefore also 0% renewable. These two energy sources have a major impact on the renewability which as seen above was calculated to only 7,92 percent. The biofuel share was very small compared to other energy sources and there were also fossil fuels like oil which also contribute to the low renewability rate.

On the other hand, the energy performance was relatively good as the building is 24 percent more energy efficient than the building regulations require.

7,92%

% renewable % non-renewable

92,08%

Figure 14. Uppsala municipality renewability rate of the heat mix

Table 10. The renewability rate of the heat mix in Uppsala municipality

Renewability Uppsala heat mix 7,92 %

5.4 Nydal, Knivsta

5.4.1 Knivsta municipality energy strategy

According to Wetterstedt, the energy strategy for Knivsta consists of the following guidelines:

. Minimize the exergy use by using the right energy source for the right purpose. Utilization of low-quality energy as much as possible for energy supply by installation of low temperature heating systems, using heat driven household appliances and using waste heat for heating. The word “exergy” refers to the energy quality and means the maximum amount of mechanical work that can be extracted from a system as it goes to the thermodynamics equilibrium according to Wetterstedt.

. Use of solar energy to cover energy need as much as possible for example by photovoltaics and solar collectors. . Maximize the total energy production from an energy source such as biofuel by use of e.g. a stirling engine that can produce additional electricity. . Decrease the environmental impact from electricity production. To lower electricity peak effects that trigger use of back-up fossil fuel systems at the energy supplier, implement “smart-house”-functions that cut out non-essential end-users during peak hours.

Wetterstedt mentions that the city’s heat supply is today dominated by district heating from Vattenfall AB where more than 90 percent is considered to be renewable as described below:

13% Branches Wood chips Bark 17% Oil 64% Electricity

Figure 15. Heat mix in Knivsta municipality

Table 11. Energy mix in Knivsta municipality

Fuel GWh Share [%] Oil 2,6 3,5 Biofuel (Bark) 7,2 10 Biofuel (Branches) 49,7 67 Biofuel (Wood chips) 12,9 17 Electricity 1,9 2,5 Total 74,3

5.4.2 Nydal energy consumption

When it comes to the future buildings and houses in Nydal, Knivsta municipality has no strict guidelines for how they are going to be designed from an energy use perspective since the introduction of the Swedish government’s law that prevents municipalities from imposing special requirements on the property developer (Wetterstedt, 2015). The property developers have to come up with own proposals which they have to compete with later and the municipality finally chooses the most appropriate proposal that fits with the vision of the area. Wetterstedt says that the vision in Nydal is to build passive houses according to the Swedish Centre for zero-energy houses, which is an important step towards a sustainable city from an energy use perspective. To convince property developers to build passive houses, Knivsta municipality will have to develop a strategy that stimulate and attract the developers to build such energy-efficient buildings according to Wetterstedt.

When calculating the energy performance for a hypothetical building in Nydal, i.e. before being buit, requirements for passive houses were imposed on the building Smaragden when as if located in Nydal. To achieve the desired energy efficiency the building´s energy systems were modified such as building envelope, energy distribution, heat recovery rate for air etc. The calculations for the energy performance of Smaragden in Nydal are described below:

Table 12. Building information Building Mean U-value 0.3178 W/(K·m2)

Table 13. Building energy use Energy used kW kWh/m2 Lightning, facility 9184 1.4 Equipment, facility 11037 1.7 Electric cooling 6089 0.9 HVAC aux 59657 9.1 Total building electricity 85967 13.1

Total building hot water 188197 28.6

Total building heating 83910 12.7 Total 358074 54.4

Table 14. Differenses between building input values in Rosendal and Nydal Rosendal Nydal Outer Walls, Insulation 115 mm 200 mm Window U-value 0.9 W/(m2*K) 0.8 W/(m2*K) Heat exchanger, efficiency 0.8 0.86 Heat exchanger defrost temp. 1˚ C -30˚ C 2 2 Hot water circulation, improved 0.5 W/m Atemp 0.38 W/m Atemp insulation and more energy efficient pumps Total energy performance 60.8 kWh/m2 54.4 kWh/m2

Since Nydal has the intention to build passive houses, several measures to lower energy consumption were considered. These considerations were made by searching information on the Internet and by discussing with Andreas Ceder which is building energy specialist at Ramboll AB. As seen in the table above, the domestic hot water usage differs from the value for Smaragden in Rosendal, it has decreased with 1.1 kWh/m2. This was achieved by model installation of low-flow showers instead of regular showers. According to Vattenfall AB, a regular shower uses 12 l/minute which corresponds to about 3000-4000 kWh/year. A low-flush shower uses 7 l/minute which saves 5 l/minute which corresponds to about 1000-1500 kWh/year (Vattenfall AB, 2015). When the hot water consumption was reduced as described above, the energy 2 losses from the hot water circulation were reduced from 0.5W/m Atemp to 2 0.38W/m ,Atemp after discussing with Ceder due to the savings in hot water use done by the measures described above. The major energy saving was made for the building heating usage where the consumption was 12.7 kWh/m2 compared to 18.0 kWh/m2 for Rosendal. The savings were achieved mainly through changing the type of heat exchanger in the building. A rotating heat exchanger was used to increase the efficiency to 85% compared to the previous value of 80% efficiency which was the case in Rosendal. The defrosting temperature is the temperature where the heat exchanger has to be defrosted when it reaches it. In this case, a lower defrosting temperature was entered in IDA ICE, which was -30 degrees Celsius. That is the big advantage with rotating heat exchangers since they can run without defrosting at low outdoor temperatures with no risk of icing or need to drain. They have a higher annual efficiency compared to other heat exchange models such as the counter flow heat exchanger (Ventilation-ftx, 2015).

Another way to lower the building heating usage was to choose walls with more insulation thus reducing the U-value. For the Nydal-building insulation thickness was increased from 115 mm in the Rosendal-building to 200 mm thus reducing the U-value from 0,9 to 0,8. Many different values for the thickness of walls were entered but the results showed that thicker walls did ot make any big differences in reducing heat usage. That is why an estimate had to be made which in this case was 200 mm.

To sum up, all the described measures above gave a total of 54.4 kWh/m2 and the limit for passive buildings is 50 kWh/m2 which means that additional measures need to be considered to fulfill the passive house requirements. One solution is to install photovoltaics and solar collectors on the roof of the building to generate energy, thus reducing the amount of imported energy. The following sections below describe the results from installation of solar energy.

5.4.3 Solar electricity

In order to meet the requirements for passive house, further energy savings were needed both for electricity and domestic hot water use which why photovoltaics (PV) and solar collectors was modeled to be installed on the roof of Smaragden. The desired energy 2 performance of the building will be around 45 kWh/m /Atemp/year, to reach a 10 percentage safety margin of the required value for energy performance. Since the 2 energy performance of Smaragden in Nydal was 54,4 kWh/m /Atemp/year and on-site production of about 9 kWh/m2/ year is needed from solar energy. The decision was that 2 a minimum of 4,5 kWh/m / year (Especific) should be produced from PVs and the same amount from solar collectors to meet the building energy use which would then be 45,4 kWh/m2/year.

5.4.4 PVgis Simulation

In order to calculate how much energy needs to be produced by the PV system, the performance ratio for Knivsta needed to be calculated. The online calculator PVGis simulation was used with the described input parameters below:

Table 15. Input parameters for the online calculator PVGis Input parameter Value Location Knivsta, Sweden Installed Peak PV-power 1 kWp Tilt angel [0;90] 20˚ Azimuth [-180;180] 0˚ (south)

The choice of the installed peak PV-power and the tilt angel was recommended from Andreas Ceder, building energy specialist at Ramboll AB. The choice of the azimuth was 0 degree towards the south to gain maximum insolation. The simulations results showed that the energy production for a PV installed on a roof in Knivsta with the parameters above is:

U= 901 kWh/kW

To calculate the total amount of energy needed to be produced by the PVs, the specific energy consumption needed, Especific, times the internal surface of the floor area, the attic 2 and basement called Atemp [m ] (Boverket, 2015), needs to be calculated:

To calculate the maximum effect that the PVs on the roof should have to cover the energy use of 4,5 kWh/m2, year is:

To reduce the energy use by 4,5 kWh/m2, year, PVs of a total of 32,9 kWp should be installed on the roof. This is equivalent to around 203 m2 of solar panels calculated according to Vattenfall AB.

5.4.5 Solar heat

In order to calculate the area of solar collectors needed to cover 4,5 kWh/m2, year, the solar heat software Polysun was used with the following inputs:

Table 16. Input parameters for the solar heat software Polysun Input parameter: Value: Location Knivsta, Sweden Tilt angel 60˚ (Optimum on flat roofs) Azimuth 0˚ Direction Load and system Domestic hot water Set point temperature of water 50 ˚ C Number of collectors 13 Collector area 26 m2

Results obtained from Polysun:

Collector field yield [Qsol] = 11,295.5 kWh/year

U [kWh/kW] = Qsol / Collector area = 434 kWh/m2/year

2 2 Etot= 4,5 kWh/m ,year * 6588 m = 29 646 kWh/ year

In order to produce 29 646 kWh/ year :

29646/434 = 68,3 m2 collector area is needed 52

5.4.6 Renewability rate

Considering the heat mix in Knivsta municipality, it’s dominated by biofuel combustion which was 94 % of the total heat mix, oil and electricity together represents the remaining 6 %. As biofuel was considered to be as high as 80 % renewable, the total renewability percentage was also high and was calculated to 76,80 %, which is presented in figure 16 below. The energy performance was theoretically modeled to comply with the passive house requirements. The required modifications were considered to be technically feasible and additional on-site solar energy production was installed covering only 272 square meter of the total 1414 square meter of available roof area.

23,20%

% renewable % non-renewable

76,80%

Figure 16. Renewability rate of the heat mix in Knivsta municipality

Table 17. Renewability rate of the heat mix in Knivsta municipality Renewability Knivsta heat mix 76,80 %

5.5 Norrtälje Harbor

5.5.1 Norrtälje Harbor energy strategy

Norrtälje municipality is already almost to 100 percent supplied with renewable energy as is required by the Stockholm County comprehensive plan for 2040 Today, Norrtälje Harbor’s energy supply comes from district heating from Norrtälje Energy AB which mainly provides biofuel from local suppliers and boat shipments mainly from the Baltic countries (Christer Toftegård). The heat mix for Norrtälje municipality is presented in figure 17.

0,4% 0,1%

Biofuel Oil Electricity

99,95%

Figure 17. The heat mix in Norrtälje municipality

Table 18. Heat mix in Norrtälje Municipality Fuel GWh Share [%] Biofuel 18,2 99,95 Oil 0,03 0,1 Electricity 0,07 0,4 Total 18,3

5.5.2 Norrtälje Harbor energy consumption

Similar to the other two municipalities, Norrtälje municipality cannot imply specific requirements above the building regulation energy levels on the property developers when it comes to new buildings and houses in Norrtälje Harbor. According to Sahlén, the municipality organizes a land allocation competition where property developers present their proposals for how to design and build the intended area. In this case, the property developers will try to develop an offer that suits the municipality’s overall goals associated with environmental and sustainability issues (Sahlén, 2015). Since Norrtälje municipality does not have any specific strategy for the moment about how the future buildings should be designed or about the energy use, the requirements of the National Board of Housing 22 (BBR 22) were considered when calculating the energy performance. Since the limit for the energy use in apartment buildings was 80 kWh/m2,year, the energy use for Smaragden as if in Norrtälje Harbor was designed to be 70,9 kWh/m2/year to have a 10 percent margin to the limit. The table below shows the energy performance for Smaragden when modeling according to the requirements of the National Board of Housing 22:

Table 19. Building energy use Energy used kW kWh/m2 Lightning, facility 9182 1.4 Equipment, facility 11037 1.7 Electric cooling 6467 0.9 HVAC aux 59873 9.1 Total building electricity 86549 13.1

Total building hot water 207990 31.6

Total building district heating 172284 26.2 Total 466923 70.9

To obtain the energy performance level specified in BBR 22, several modifications were made to reach a value around 70 kWh/m2, year, which is a higher value than the one for the original case in Rosendal. These measures include:

Table 20. Differencce in building value input in Rosendal and Norrtälje Harbor Rosendal Norrtälje Harbor Outer Walls, Insulation 0.115 m 0,115 m Window U-value 0.9 W/(m2*K) 1,9 W/(m2*K) Heat exchanger, efficiency 0.8 0,7 Heat exchanger, defrost temp. 1˚ C 1˚ C 2 2 Hot water circulation 0.5 W/m Atemp 0,7 W/m Atemp Total energy performance 60.8 kWh/m2 70,9 kWh/m2

As seen in the table above, the building envelope for a building located in Norrtälje Harbor has higher heat losses than the building in Rosendal. The outer walls insulation is the same but the windows have a significantly higher U-value which means larger heat losses per square meter. The heat exchanger has lower efficiency while the defrost temperature for it is still the same. The hot water circulation losses are higher due to poor insulation and poorer water pumps. The energy performance was calculated to 70,9 kWh/m2/ year which is more than 10 kWh/m2/ year higher than the value for Rosendal.

5.5.3 Renewability rate

As described before, the heat mix in Norrtälje Harbor mainly consists of biofuels which according to this study have a high renewability rate. That affects the overall renewability of the heat mix which showed to be the highest rate among the other two municipalities.

20,40%

% renewable % non-renewable

79,60%

Figure 18. Renewability rate of the heat mix in Norrtälje municipality

Table 21. Renewability rate of the heat mix in Norrtälje municipality Renewability rate Norrtälje heat mix 79,60 %

5.6 Energy use results summary

The following figures show the summary of the heat mix results in each municipality and how it affects the overall renewability of the district areas.

Waste

6% Peat 4% 5% 7,92% 3% Pellets 0,1% % Unrefined 6% renewable 48% biofuel Oil % non- 28% renewable Flue gas condensate 92,08% Electricity

Heat prod. From boilers

Figure 19. The heat mix and the renewability rate of it in Uppsala municipality

Branches 3% 3% 23,20% Wood chips 13% % renewable Bark 17% % non- 64% renewable Oil 76,80% Electricity

Figure 20. The heat mix and the renewability rate of in Knivsta municipality

0,1% 0,4% 20,40%

Biofuel % renewable Oil 99,95% % non- Electricity renewable

79,60%

Figure 21. The heat mix and the renewability rate of in Norrtälje municipality

Table 22. The summary of the energy use in all three district areas Rosendal Nydal Norrtälje Harbor

Energy performance 60,8 45,4 70,9 [kWh/m2, year]

Heat mix renewability 7,92 76,80 79,60 [%]

Electric mix 55,91 55,91 55,91 renewability[%]

80 70 60 50 40 Energy performance 30 (kWh/m2,year) 20 10 0 Rosendal Nydal Norrtälje Harbor

Figure 22. The energy performance for the district areas.

As seen above, Nydal has the lowest energy use since it is designed according to passive house requirements, while Norrtälje Harbor has the highest energy use because only the BBR 22 requirements were considered. Rosendal has a value in between the other two district areas, and the building was constructed according to BBR 19.

6. Discussion

Today, there is growing evidence that humans are driving global changes with detrimental or even catastrophic consequences for large parts of the world. The growing reliance on fossil fuels for energy supply has reached a level that could damage the desirable stable state of the Earth. In order to achieve social, ecological and economic sustainability and achieve the UN global environmental goals, the property sector primarily within the field of energy, needs to implement measures for improvements. The fact that buildings account for almost 40 percent of the total energy use in Sweden and a major contributor to exposure of chemicals in society, makes it one of the most important sectors to improve and make more energy and resource efficient.

Different kinds of international or national environmental certification systems function as one way to achieve more sustainable buildings, district areas and building processes that limit GHG emissions and chemical pollutants as well as fossil energy use. Since international urban development certification systems, such as BREEAM communities, had poor adaptation to the Swedish conditions and urban development projects, a new Swedish certification system was decided to be developed and later on called Citylab.

Comparing the energy principle in Citylab Action to contemporary ways of working with energy issues in the three district areas showed different results. What was in common for Rosendal and Norrtälje Harbor is that both projects had chosen to be certified according to Citylab Action, meaning that both will follow the guide of Citylab Action eventually. Nydal has yet not decided to be certified by Citylab Action, however the project will take a look at the principles specified in the manual.

Uppsala municipality had the most structured energy strategy among the three municipalities since it had a clear follow-up process in the beginning of a project together with the property developer and for the energy use performance both one and two years after a project ends. For Rosendal, since the project is still developing and not finished yet, the follow-up process for the energy use has not been performed yet by Uppsala municipality. However, a follow-up process for the use of renewable energy sources is still missing in their strategy and the case is the same for the other two projects. All three municipalities are today not following-up the use of renewable energy sources even though they could have goals and objectives to do so. This leaves a gap in the energy strategy since property developers or municipalities may choose not to follow any requirements associated with the use of renewable energy sources since no

59 one is following up anyway. Municipalities then miss an important key to decrease the GHG emissions for their urban development projects. What Citylab is doing, is to introduce measures for following up the use of renewable energy sources to improve the level of renewable energy sources.

Regarding measures for minimizing the GHG emissions, all three projects have in common that they arrange land allocation competitions for property developers to get the best building concepts for sustainable building processes. Having these competitions is a good way of stimulating property developers to construct energy efficient buildings and to work towards sustainability since the law prevents municipalities from setting special requirements. Despite that, other measures for stimulating property developers to build energy efficient buildings should be taken in order to ensure that property developers offer sustainable solutions. Such measures are up to the municipality to analyze and decide.

Considering the energy performance calculated for each project, Nydal had the lowest energy performance since passive house requirements were considered for the energy use which resulted in a tight building envelope with small heat losses. The energy performance was around 43 percent better than the BBR 22 requirements. There were also PVs and solar collectors installed on the roof in order to meet the passive house requirements. However, it should be noted that it has not yet been decided that the future buildings in Nydal should be passive houses.

Norrtälje Harbor had the highest energy use compared to the other two cases. This result was a consequence of that Norrtälje Municipality only followed the BBR 22 requirements. Thus the energy use was only 10 percent better than the BBR 22 requirements. This shows the importance for the municipality to take the lead and create visions for how future buildings should be so property developers cannot choose the easy way and build according to the minimum requirements, i.e. the BBR requirements.

The case of Rosendal had an energy use level in between the Nydal and Norrtälje Harbor and the energy simulation was made on a real case building, i.e. the building Smaragden in Rosendal. The energy performance of Smaragden in Rosendal is around 25 percent better than the BBR 22 requirements.

When it comes to the renewability of the energy mix of each municipality, Norrtälje and Nydal had the highest share of renewability since their heat supply mainly consists of biofuels from the forestry industry which, according to the assumptions made in this study, has a high renewability rate.

The case of Nydal is similar to Norrtälje Harbor since their heat mix mostly consists of biofuels. An interesting aspect is that according to the energy strategist Wetterstedt in Knivsta, Vattenfall AB supplies Knivsta with an energy mix that is more than 90 percent renewable. Based on research on these energy sources made in this study, it is not the case. The issue is that different actors estimate the rate of renewability

60 differently depending on their association to the energy supply in a city. Vattenfall AB is the energy supplier of Knivsta municipality and wants to promote their heat supply as more renewable than what it could be. Therefore it was expected that they would estimate to have a higher renewability rate than the rate calculated in this study. Rosendal had the lowest renewability rate of their heat mix since their heat supply came mainly from waste and peat which based on the research made in the study, was considered non-renewable. These two energy sources give Rosendal the lowest percentage of renewable energy sources due to the heat mix, despite actively working to achieve sustainability on district level. However, the mix will improve after year 2020 when Vattenfall AB has taken the planned new biofuel boiler in use.

When comparing these three district areas with each other, it is clear that Rosendal puts efforts on constructing well insulated building envelopes with smaller heat losses to improve the energy use. Meanwhile Norrtälje Harbor puts efforts on having heat supply from renewable energy sources. The case Nydal combines both well insulated building envelopes and a heat supply with a high renewability rate as well as using local solar energy production. However, it is not decided yet whether Nydal will have passive houses or other types of energy requirements for their future buildings which is why their case is counted as an ideal case.

What is then the best measure or action to invest on for developing sustainable buildings and district areas? Is it by investing in thicker walls, better windows and ventilation systems etc. to decrease the heat losses and lower energy usage in the building, or by focusing on increasing the use of renewable energy for both heat and electricity? The ideal case would be to focus on both aspects but in reality there are other aspects involved such as economic and legal aspects. Limited economic and material resources could set some boundaries for municipalities to choose the best concept for building sustainable areas and cities. For local solar energy production, in the long term, problems like investing in a new system could arise since today the life span of a PV or a solar collector is around 30 years. This implies economic re- investments for property owners after a relatively short time comparing with investment for building more insulated walls that last for a lot more than 30 years and that limits the heat losses through the building envelope.

In addition to all the technical aspects mentioned above, there are also important social aspects of building sustainable cities which could have a big impact on minimizing GHG emissions and the energy use in buildings. The concept of Citylab does not only focus on technical aspects but on the behavior of the people living in a city and how it could lead to energy savings and decreasing GHG emisisons on many levels. Choosing public transportation instead of cars is one of many other measures that people could do in order to make a city sustainable. Small measures done by many people could bring a change.

7. Conclusions

The Citylab Action guide provides a strategy and guidelines for how to build sustainable cities and to achieve the global environmental goals. It works as a sharing platform which helps different projects to take advantage and to share experiences with each other. The purpose of this paper was to examine how the projects Nydal, Norrtälje Harbour and Rosendal worked with energy use in their future buildings and how their energy strategies related to the energy principles of Citylab. More specifically, the energy consumption of the building Smaragden in Rosendal was assessed and used as an indicator to evaluate to what extent these projects were working sustainably. Since Nydal and Norrtälje Harbor have not been built yet, Smaragden was used for each study area as a test building, i.e. with different input values and specifications depending on the energy strategy used in each specific area.

In general, the Citylab Action guideline for the energy issues differ from how all three municipalities usually work since their energy strategy lacks several aspects. The most important deviation is the lack of renewable energy and having a follow-up process after each project to make sure the set goals were achieved. However, Uppsala municipality had the most structured energy strategy among the other two municipalities since they have an energy goal, measures for how to achieve the goal and a follow-up process only for the energy use. Norrtälje- and Knivsta municipality needs to improve their strategies by implementing a follow- up process. Since both Rosendal and Norrtälje Harbor will be certificated according to Citylab, both projects will eventually have to implement all measures specified to get approved. Nydal is still considering whether to be certified according to Citylab or not, but it doesn’t prevent them from developing their own energy strategy for a sustainable district area. Considering the energy use for the study areas, Nydal showed to be the most sustainable district area. It was achieved by having the solution that buildings should follow passive house requirements and have local solar energy production to achieve energy efficient buildings. Norrtälje Harbor considered the BBR 22 requirements which resulted in a generally poor building envelope and high energy use. Considering the renewability rate of the heat mix, Norrtälje municipality had the highest rate because of the use of biofuels and Rosendal had the lowest rate because of the use of non-renewable energy like peat and waste.

In summary, considering the energy use, Nydal is the district area that showed great ambitions to build sustainably since the passive house requirements were followed. Considering energy strategy, Uppsala municipality had the most structured strategy where a goal, measures and a follow-up strategy for the energy use were presented. Norrtälje municipality had the highest share of renewability for the heat mix. After comparing the sustainability of all three district areas, the conclusion was that each one has its own strengths and weaknesses and also different needs and conditions. The most important is that all three study areas are taking action for improving their energy

62 strategy and to build sustainable areas whether it is done by joining Citylab or by developing a particular strategy.

8. Recommendations and further studies

After completing this study and analyzing the energy strategy of each district area, some recommendations were suggested:

. Nydal should consider to be certified according to Citylab Action. . Nydal should present their energy use in buildings and develop follow-up routines for their projects. . Norrtälje Harbor should also develop follow-up routines for reaching their sustainability goals. . Norrtälje Harbor should also work towards decreasing the energy use in buildings to improve the building efficiency. . Rosendal should consider improving their heat mix by decreasing the use of waste and peat.

Suggestions for further studies are to investigate how district areas, that choose the Citylab Action certification, implement the principles of Citylab in their projects. The district areas differ from each other depending on their needs and conditions which why it would be interesting to see what solutions they suggest to build sustainably and to be certified according to Citylab.

This study only takes in consideration the energy use principle in Citylab Action. It would then be interesting to also investigate the rest of the principles such as Transport, Water and other principles because they all make a sustainable city.

9. References

Abel, E., Elmroth, A. (2013), Byggnaden som system. Studentlitteratur AB: Lund Alvehus, J (2013), Skriva uppsats med kvalitativ metod: en handbok, Stockholm: Liber, 2013 p. 20-79 Arvesen A., Hertwich Edga G. (2012), Assessing the life cycle environmental impacts of wind power: A review of present knowledge and research needs”. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews Belkert, A-K. SGBC, 20th October 2015, SWECO Stockholm. Face to face interview BFS, (2015:3), Boverkets Byggregler (BBR22), 2015:3. Tillgänglig online:https://rinfo.boverket.se/BBR/PDF/BFS2015-3-BBR-22.pdf (2015-03-18) Boone, C. Fragkias, M. (2013), Urbanization and Sustainability, Linking Urban Ecology, Environmental Justice and Global Environmental Change. Volume 3, ISBN:978-94-007-5666-3. BREEAM, (2015). Introduction to BREEAM Communities. Available online: http://www.breeam.com/filelibrary/BREEAM%20Communities/Introduction_to_BR EEAM_Communities.pdf (2015-12-22) Chen, C. Julian. Physics of Solar Energy. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2011. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 25 November 2015. Cherubini et al., (2009) Energy- and greenhouse gas-based LCA of biofuel and bioenergy systems: Key issues, ranges and recommendations. Resources, Conservation and Recycling (2015-10-26) Davidsson, S., Grandell, L., Wachtmeister, H., Höök, M. (2014), Growth curves and sustained commissioning modelling of renewable energy: Investigating resource constraints for wind energy. Energy Policy (2015-12-22) Denscombe M. (2000), Forskningshandboken, för småskaliga forskningsprojekt inom samhällsvetenskaperna. Lund, Sverige EQUA (2015), IDA Indoor Climate and Energy. Available online: http://www.equa.se/en/ida-ice (2015-12-03) Globalis (2015), Sweden, population. Available online: http://www.globalis.se/Laender/Sverige/(show)/indicators (2015-10-05) Gillham, Bill (2000), Case study research methods. London Grankvist, P. (2012), CSR i praktiken: Hur företaget kan jobba med hållbarhet för att tjäna pengar. Liber AB: Malmö. Teoridel Green Rhino Energy (2015), Energy Yield and Performance Ratio of Photovoltaic Systems. Available online: http://www.greenrhinoenergy.com/solar/technologies/pv_energy_yield.php (2015- 10-22)

Griggs, D. et al.(2013), Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature Vol 495 Hollinder, A. Energy strategist, Uppsala, 26th October and 2nd December 2015. Uppsala municipality. Face to face interview Hållplatsen (2015), Citylab. Available online: http://hallplatsen.nu/2015/08/citylab- whats-in-it-for-me/ (2015-12-20) Jones F., Blomqvistb E., Bisaillonc M., Daniel K Lindberga and Mikko Hupaa (2013)“Determination of fossil carbon content in Swedish waste fuel by four different methods” Waste Management & Research Jordbruksverket (2012), Vad är förnybar energi? Available on: http://www.jordbruksverket.se/amnesomraden/miljoklimat/begransadklimatpaverkan /fornybarenergi/vadarfornybarenergi.4.2a19d05112133800c8b800089.html (2015- 11-23) Kemaka AR (2010), Kunskapsläge om miljökonsekvenser av prospektering, utvinning och bearbetning av mineraltillgångar av uran. Available online: https://www.naturvardsverket.se/upload/stod-i- miljoarbetet/vagledning/gruvor/uranbrytning/kunskapslage-uranbrytning.pdf (2015- 12-03) Knivsta Kommun (2015), Befolkning. Available online: http://www.knivsta.se/Kommun-och- politik/Ekonomi%20och%20statistik/Statistik/Aktuell-befolkning.aspx (2015-10-15) Knivsta Kommun (2015), Stadsbyggnads vision. Available online: http://www.knivsta.se/~/media/Files/Trafik- infrastruktur/Nydal/Rapport%20Stadsbyggnadsvision%20150210.ashx (2015-10-07) Knivsta Kommun (2015), Illustations plan. Available online: http://www.knivsta.se/~/media/Files/Trafik- infrastruktur/Nydal/Medborgardialog3/Underliggande%20strukturer.ashx (2015-10- 23) Magnusson P., Broström S. (2015), Siktet mot en hållbar stadsutveckling. Available online: http://stud.epsilon.slu.se/8288/11/magnusson_p_brostrom_s_150708.pdf Michaelides (Stathis) Efstathios E. (2012), Alternative Energy Sources. Available online:http://www.nature.com.ezproxy.its.uu.se/nature/journal/v461/n7263/full/4614 72a.html (2015-12-12) National Board of Housing (2015), Kulturella och sociala perspektiv på hållbar stadsutveckling. Available online: http://www.boverket.se/sv/samhallsplanering/stadsutveckling/sociokulturell- hallbarhet/ (2015-10-09)

Naturvårdsverket (2015), Energin påverkar miljön. Available on: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Miljoarbete-i-samhallet/Miljoarbete-i- Sverige/Uppdelat-efter-omrade/Energi/Energin-paverkar-miljon/ (2015-10-24) Norrtälje Kommun (2015), Utbyggnadsstrategi för Norrtälje Hamn. Available online: http://norrtaljehamn.se/utbyggnadsstrategi-for-norrtalje-hamn/ (2015-10-27) Norrtälje Kommun (2015), Markanvisningstävling för kvartier 8, 15 och 16 i Norrtälje Hamn. Available online: https://www.norrtalje.se/globalassets/stad-och- trafik/norrtalje-hamn/inbjudan-anbud-markanvisning-kv-8-15-och-16--rev-150916--- -slutversion.pdf (2015-11-01) Olofsson M., Sahlin J., Ekvall T., Sundberg J. (2005) Driving forces for import of waste for energy recovery in Sweden. Energy Systems Technology Division, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden Polysun (2015), Photovoltaics, Solar Thermal and Geothermal – with Polysun you get everything in one tool! Available online: http://www.velasolaris.com/english/product/overview.html (2015-12-11) Photovoltaic & Solar Electricity Design Tools (2015), PVGis. Available on: http://photovoltaic-software.com/pvgis.php (2015-10-22) Radaal L., Gagnon L., Modhal S., Hanssen J. (2011), Life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the generation of wind and hydro power. Vol 15, Issue 7, Pages 3417-3422 Ramböll Sverige AB (2013), Energibalansberäkning Smaragden. Uppsala Rockström J. et al., (2009), A safe operating space for humanity. Nature Vol 461 Rosendals Fastigheter (2015), Samragden. Available on: http://www.rosendaluppsala.se/vara-projekt/smaragden-i-rosendal/ (2015-11-02) Sahlén, C. Norrtälje municipality, 23d October 2015, Norrtälje. Face to face interview Sahlén, C. Norrtälje municipality, 26th November 2015, Norrtälje. E-mail interview interview Swedish environmental protection agency (2015), Fossil fuels. Available online: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Miljoarbete-i-samhallet/Miljoarbete-i- Sverige/Uppdelat-efter-omrade/Energi/Fossila-branslen/ (2015-10-15)

Swedish energy agency (2015), Biofuels. Available online: http://www.energimyndigheten.se/statistik/tillforsel/biobransle/ (2015-10-02)

Swedish Center for Zero-energy houses (2012), Om FEBY 12. Available on: http://www.nollhus.se/feby-12/om-feby-12 (2015-11-09) Svensk solenergi (2015), Fakta om Solenergi. Available on: http://www.svensksolenergi.se/fakta-om-solenergi (2015-10-23)

Saracoglu N., Gunduz G. (2009). Wood Pellets-Tomorrow's Fuel for Europe, Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects . Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567030802459677 (2015-11-12) Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A., (2007), Research Methods for Business Students, 4. ed, Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall Svebyprogrammet (2010),Brukarindata bostäder. Available online: http://www.sveby.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/10/Sveby_Brukarindata_bostader_version_1.0.pdf (2015-10- 23) Swedish Radiation Safety Agency (2013). Kärnbränsle. Available on: https://www.stralsakerhetsmyndigheten.se/start/Karnkraft/Sa-fungerar-ett- karnkraftverk/Karnbransle/ (2015-11-03) Swedish Center for Zero-energy houses (2012), Kravspecifikation för nollenergihus, passivhus och minienergihus Bostäder. Available online: http://www.nollhus.se/dokument/Kravspecifikation%20FEBY12%20- %20bostader%20sept.pdf (2015-10-24) SGBC, Sweden Green Building Council (2014), Slutrapport Betatester. Available online: http://hallplatsen.nu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Slutrapport-betatester-med- signatur.pdf (2015-12-14) SGBC, Sweden Gren Building Council (2010), Miljöbyggnad, bedömningskriterier för nyproducerade byggnader. Available online: https://www.sgbc.se/dokument-och- manualer (2015-10-21) SGBC, Sweden Green Building Council (2015), Citylab Action, advanced copy. Available online: https://www.sgbc.se/docman/citylab-action-2015/608-citylab- action-v-1-0-forhandskopia/file (2015-11-05) The Swedish Parliament (2015), Kommunala särkrav vid byggnation. Available on: http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Debatter-- beslut/Interpellationsdebatter1/Debatt/?did=H210147 (2015-10-22) Toftgård, C. Norrtälje Energy, 16th October 2015. E-mail interview United Nations (2015), UN & sustainable development, Rio+20. Available online: http://www.fn.se/fn-info/vad-gor-fn/utveckling/hallbar-utveckling-/ (2015-10-24) Uppsala Kommun (2015), Projektets bakgrund. Available online: http://bygg.uppsala.se/planerade-omraden/rosendal/om-rosendal/projektets- bakgrund/ (2015-10-23) Uppsala Kommun (2015), Om Rosendal. Available online: http://bygg.uppsala.se/planerade-omraden/rosendal/om-rosendal/ (2015-11-02) United Nations (2015), Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=1300 (2015-10-23)

United Nations (2015), Goal 11: make cities inclusive, resilient and sustainable. Available online: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/cities/ (2015-10-25)

United Nations (2015), Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld (2015-10-10) Ventilation-ftx (2012), Roterande värmeväxlare eller motrömsvärmeväxlare. Available online: http://www.ventilation-ftx.se/hej-varlden/ (2015-12-02) Vattenfall AB,(2015), Spar på vatten. Available online: http://www.vattenfall.se/sv/spara-vatten.htm Wetterstedt, M. Energy strategist, Knivsta, 19th October , 6th November 2015, Ramböll AB, Uppsala. Face to face interview afrilla ., Cadarso ., onsalve F., and de la a C., (2014) How Carbon-Friendly Is Nuclear Energy? A Hybrid MRIO-LCA Model of a Spanish Facility (2015-11-09)

Appendix A

District heating, kWh Annual energy = (area)(kWh/m2) Area: 3,04E+04 m² Norrtälje kommun, 2015a, 2015b kWh/m2: 8,10E+01 kWh/yr IDA ICE Annual energy: 2,46E+06 kWh/yr

Energymix District heating Bio fuels: 2,45E+06 80 % renewable, Biogeoscience 2011, Energy Policy 2004 0 % renewwable, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Fossil fuel, oil: 2,46E+03 2015 Electricity 9,85E+03 56,45 % renewable, Nordic electric mix Renewable 2,46E+06 Non-renewable 6,82E+03 % renewable 79,60% % non-renewable 20,40% 100,00%

Electricity, kWh Annual electricity use: 45,1 kWh/m2, year Total area: 6588 m2 Total property electricity: 297118,8 Kwh/year Nuclear power: 5,94E+04 0 % renewable, Environmental Science and technology, 2014 Hydro power: 1,71E+05 85 % renewable, Radaal et a., 2011 Wind power: 7,25E+03 85 % renewable, Arvesen et al., 2009 Biofuel: 1,45E+04 80 % renewable, Biogeoscience 2011, Energy Policy 2004 Waste: 3,15E+03 0 % renewable, Waste managment and Research 2013 Geothermal power: 2,88E+03 100 % renewable, Armannson et al., 2005 other thermal power: 7,13E+02 0 % renewwable, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Coal: 1,81E+04 2015 0 % renewwable, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Oil: 1,28E+03 2015 0 % renewwable, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Peat: 4,16E+03 2015 0 % renewwable, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Natural gas: 1,40E+04 2015 Others, includes refinery gas: 7,13E+02 0% renewable

renewable 1,66E+05 non-renewable 1,31E+05 % renewable 55,91% % non-reneable 44,15% 100,06%